' 864 SPEECH 

.T54 
i^opy 1 



OF 



HON. SAi^THUKSTON, OF OREGON, 



ON THE PROPOSITION 



TO ADMIT CALIFOENIA AS A STATE L^TOTHE UNION. 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 25, 1850. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE 0F3ICE, 

1850. 



y 






ADMISSION or CALIEORNIA. 



In Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
Union, on the President's Message transmitting 
the Constitution of California. 

Mr. THURSTON said: 

Mr. Chairman : I have come here as the delegate 
■from the Territory of Oregon. I have the honor 
of being the first recognized Representative from 
the Pacific coast, and am at this time the only one 
accredited from that country on this floor. I come 
from the toil-worn people of that distantTerritory, 
to speak and act in all cases, as 1 believe they 
would do, were they here, acting in my stead. I 
come here, sir, not as a party man, though I be- 
long to a party; and not as a sectional man, though 
1 belong to a section. Though by the law, I may 
be entitled to all the rights, save one, to which a 
Representative from a State is entitled, yet, as a 
matter of courtesy to the members of the House, if 
not of ease to myself, I shall refrain from all de- 
bate, except on such questions as my territory is 
immediately interested in; and on such I shall en- 
deavor to confine myself to the question. On such 
Questions, I have no doubt, the members of this 
Congress, whether sitting as a House, or as a 
committee, will be disposed to grant me the privi- 
lege of speaking, and do me the honor to listen 
while I speak. 

The question of the admission of California into 
this Union as a State, is one in which, for several 
reasons, my Territory is deeply interested. Cali- 
fornia and Oregon are twin sisters. They are allied 
together, by cords so strong, by feelings so similar, 
and by occupations so widely diflerent — and for 
that reason more important to each otlier — that you 
cannot even jostle the one, without the other's feel- 
iiig the motion. When you raise the knife over 
one, the other expects to bleed. When adversity 
withers the foliage of the one, the leaves of the 
other wither; and when you insult and abuse the 
one, the fire of indignation flashes across the coun- 
tenance of the other. And, indeed, so closely are 
we allied, and so dependent the one on the other, 
and so sympathetic are we, that the pulsations of 
ihe heart of the one send the very life-blood into 
the extremities of the other; and I must confess, 
that I involuntarily partake so fully of this spirit, 
tiiat not a few times in this House, and in the 
other end of the Capitol, I have had my best feel- 
ings deeply wounded, as 1 have heard California 
and her people slandered, and perfectly over- 
whelmed with hard words, because they have 
dared to make use of one of the first laws of na- 
Uife, protect themselves — because they have dared to 



construct for themselves a State constitution, and 
have knocked at your door for admission. For this, 
they are called "usurpers," "fugitives from jus- 
tice," "Sandwich Islanders," "Indians," "ne- 
groes;" and the best vocabularies are taxed, to find 
I epithets to express toward them a sovereign con- 
; tempt. The people ofCalifornia, sir, do not deservs 
■ such treatment; and here, 1 take occasion to return 
my thanks, and the thanks of the people of that 
J coast, to the gentleman from Alabama, [Mr. Ikce,] 
the most ardent of the ardent opponents to the ad- 
mission of California, for saying what the truth will 
warrant, that a more intelligent and enterprising 
; people cannot be found on the globe, than are to be 
found in California. I thank him for it, sir, be- 
cause truly said, and because I shall have oceasion 
to use it by and by; for what admissions come 
from an enemy, are entitled to double weight. This, 
then, being a question in which Oregon is interested, 
deeply and sensitively interested, I not only deem 
I it my right, but my imperative duty, as her only 
Piepresentative here, to interest myself in its suc- 
cess. To discharge this duty, notwithstanding 
many misgivings, has brought me to the floor in 
my place, to raise my feeble voice in behalf of 
California. 

The position which I intend to assume, Mt. 
Chairman, and v/hich I shall endeavor to maka 
good by argument, is this, that California shouM 
be admitted into the American Union as a State 
on the terms she has asked — ay, sir, admitted 
into the Union without altering a single feature 
of her golden constitution. To maintain this 
position, it will only be necessary to remove the 
several objections which are raised to heradmis- 
.sion. For the question is, simply, ought she to 
be admitted? The nature of our Government is 
such, as to presume the affirmative. Upon those 
who object, de-volves the labor of showing cause 
why their objection should prevail. The Con- 
stitution provides that "new States may be ad- 
mitted by the Congress into this Union." Now, 
I take it that nothing is more plain than thia, 
that when a State presents herself, by her Rep- 
resentatives, with constitution in hand, for ad- 
mission into the Union, it becomes the duty of 
Congress, without delay, to investigate the pro- 
priety of granting the request. If no objections 
appear, the propriety is unquestionable. This 
investigation is to be made by Congress; and that 
Congress is composed of diiFerent individuals; 
and those individuals who object, of course must 
show cause for their obj?>uion; while those v/ho 
wish the State to come in, must remove the objec- 



tions, if any valid ones are made, or must show 
that those made are not valid. I have said, that 
if no objection appears, the propriety is unques- 
tionable — not only so, but the State presenting 
herself, if formed from our territory, has a consti- 
tutional right to demand admission. The Consti- 
tution clearly contemplates the admission of new 
States, on application. Congress cannot create 
new States, but may admit; and the construction 
of the word may, here, must be governed by the 
same rules as other laws, and the may comes to 
mean must. The implied liberty to a State to ap- 
ply for admission, vests in that State the right to 
be admitted, if she presents herself with a proper 
constitution. If the State has a right to be ad- 
mitted, then may does not mean optional, but it 
imposes a constitutional necessity on Congress to 
grant the request — in other words. Congress must 
do so. In proof of this position, I give a resolu- 
tion, introduced by Mr. Calhoun into the Senate 
of the United States, February 7, 1847, with an 
extract from his remarks made theieon. This 
resolution and these remarks I introduce here for 
the purpose of showing the right of California to 
be admitted as a State, if her constitution is such 
as to be able to come out of the republican cruci- 
ble unharmed. I shall have occasion to use them 
for another purpose by and by. Here is the reso- 
lution: 

" Resolved, That it is a fundamentu? principle in our pn- 
lilical creed, that a people, in forming a constitution, hiive 
the unconditional right to totm and adopt the government 
which they may think bfst Ciileulated to secure their liber- 
ty, prosperity and happiness; and in conformity thereto, 
no other condition is imposed by the Federal Constitution 
on a State, in order to be admitted into this Union, except 
liiat its constitution shall be ' reijublican;' and that the im- 
position of any other by Congres.s, would not only be in vio- 
lation of tlie Constitution, but in direct conflict witli the 
principle on which our political system rests." 

And here are some of his remarks made upon it: 

"Sir, (said Mr. Calhoun,) I hold it to be a fundamental 
principle of our political sys-teni, that the peoph have a right 
to establish what government they may think proper for 
themselves; that every State about to become a member 
of this Union, has a right to form its own govkrnment as 
;t I'LEASES ; and that, in order to be ydmilted, there is but 
ONB qualification, and that is, that the governnirnt shall be 
republican. There is no express provision to that eliect, 
but it r<isults from that important .section which guaranties 
to every atate in this Union a republican form of goveru- 
jnent." 

By this resolution, and the concise and explicit 
statement of its doc^ines — for which Mr. Cal- 
houn is so preeminent — it appears that there is 
only one prerequisite qualification to vest in a 
State the right to demand admission, and that is, 
that her constitution shall be clad in the habili- 
ments of republicanism. When that is the case, 
acco.-ding to the doctrine of this, the greatest of 
southern statesmen — and I may say, sir, one of 
the greatest men of this or any other age — the 
young bride has a right to be wedded to the 
Unifj«K The doctrine is so broad as to settle the 
whole question of boundary. But of this I will 
speak before I get through. 

The next question, therefore, which appears to 
present itself in order, is the question, whether 
California presents herself with a republican con- 
stitution ? If so, her right to be admitted is vin- 
dicated, unless other objections prevail. To the 
republican features of the California constitution, 
therefore, let us direct our attention for a while. 
I do not suppose this objection is relied upon; for 



that constitution is such as not only to give in- 
dubitable evidence of the wisdom and practical 
statesmanship of the men who formed it, but it 
bears plainly on its features the impress of the 
age, and the progress of civilization, and the rights 
of man. Here is the fourth section in the bill of 
rights : 

" The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession 
and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall 
forever be allowed in this Slate ; and no person shall he 
rendered incompetent to be a witness on account of his 
opinions on matters of religious belief. But the liberty of 
conscience hereby secured, shall not be so construed as to 
excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify pr ftices incon- 
sistent with the peace or safety of this State.'" 

By this section, the old dogma of ihe common 
law, founded on the superstition of the dark ages 
of its origin, that no man can be a competent wit- 
ness unless he believes in a state of future rewards 
and punishments, or unless he believes in a God. 
or in a future state, is struck down, and the mat- 
ter is left where it should be — it admits the wit- 
ness, and allows the jury or court to judge, as to 
his credibility, in full view of all the facts. At the 
same time, with a sort of prophetic eye, the con- 
vention which formed the constitution, appears to 
have anticipated the fact, that this large liberty 
iTiight be abused, by practicing licentiousness, 
under the cover of pretended rel gious faiths, and 
hence they added the latter part of the section. 

In section 9, they demolish another old dogma 
of the law, that although a man might write and 
publish the truth, and though every one might be 
able to swear to the truth of the publication, yet 
he might be indicted, and convicted, and impris- 
oned for the crime of having told the truth to the 
very great good of the community. 

Section 10 recognizes the right of the people to 
instruct their Representatives. Just in proportion 
as this doctrine is respected, just in the same pro- 
portion is the liberty of the people safe. The 
framers of the California constitution very rightly 
thought proper to place this right of the people be- 
yond cavil, and inasmuch as the doctrine is im- 
paled by the pickets of the Constitution, there ia 
little to fear tliat a religious obedience, on the part 
of the Representatives of California, will not be 
prom]5lly yielded to the mandates of her people. 

Who can read the history of the legislation of 
the several States, Mr. Chairman, on the subject 
of imprisonment for debt, without interest? Com- 
pare the old blue laws of Connecticut to the 15lh 
section of the bill of rights of the constitution of 
California! See that sheriff yonder, taking away 
the last bed from under the emaciated, dying wife, 
and even the old rusty, hand-worn Bible from her 
withered hands, as she gazes, with tears iti her 
eyes, on the last lingering words of it, pointing 
out to her the way of life and salvation, and selling 
them to pay the bloated, beef-cheeked priest of her 
own parish, and dragging her heart-stricken hus- 
band to prison, and then look at the scrivener of 
the California convention, writing by the instruc- 
tion of that august and liberty-loving body, "No 
'person shall be imprisoned for debt in any civil 
' action, on mesne or final process, unless in cases of 
' fraud ; and no person shall be imprisoned for mili- 
' tia fine in time of peace. " Noble words, sir, and 
noble men who spoke them, and sacred be the pen 
that coursed their hopeful outlines! 

Section 17 secures the right to foreigners, bona 
fide residents in said State, to possess, enjoy, and 



inherit property, the same as though they were 
native-born citizens. The old doctrine, that a 
foreigner cannot possess or inherit real property, 
with all its attendant blessings, is exploded, and 
the converse doctrine is established by this section. 

Of the 18th section, which prohibits slavery, I 
speak not — I need not speak. It is the fiat of a 
sovereign and enlightened people, speaking in the 
midat of the ni leteenth century. It is the unani- 
mous response of an enlightened convention, 
composed of men from all sections of our com- 
mon country. It was framed where the air blows 
coolly and freely — it is the decision of a free people, 
deliberating for their own safety and prosperity, 
acting under the guaranties of the Constitution 
and Taws, deciding for themselves their own do- 
mestic institutions, eind exercising a right that is 
dearer to them than life. He who denies them 
the right, strikes at their liberty, and will receive 
the shaft of their indignation. 

Here is the entire article on the right of suffrage: 
Article II. — Right of Suffrage. 

Section 1. Every white male citizen of the United States, 
snd every white male citizen of Mexico who shall have 
elected to become a citizen of the United States, under tJie 
treaty of i^aco exchanged and ratified i\t Queretaro, on the 
tlie thirtieili day of May, 1848, of the age of twenty-one 
years, who shall have been a resident of the Stale six 
monthi nevt preceding the election, and the county or dis- 
trict in which he claims his" vote, thirty days, shall he entitled 
to vote at all elections which are now or hereafter maybe 
authorized by law: Provided, That nothing herein contained, 
shall be construed to prevent the legi=lature, by a two-thirds 
concurrent vote, from admitting to the right of suffrage, 
Indians or the descendant;- of Indian^i, in ^nch special cases 
as such a proportion of the Icgialalive body may deem just 
and proper. 

s>£c. 2. i;iectors shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, 
or breach of the peace,^e privileged from arre>t on days of 
thf^ election, during their attendance at such election, going 
to and leturning therefrom. 

Sec. 3. No eleetnr shall be obliged to perform militia duty 
on the day of election, except in time of war or public 
danger. 

Sec. 4. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be 
deemed to have gained or lost a residence by reason of his 
presence or absence while employed in the service of the 
United States; nor while engnged in the navigation of the 
waters of this State or of the United States, or of the high 
seas; nor while a student of any seminary of learning; nor 
while kept alanyalins-house, or other asylum, at public ex- 
prnse; nor while confined in any public prison. 

Seo. 5. No idiots or insane person or persons convicted of 
any infainous crime, shall be entitled to the privileges of an 
elector. 

Sec. 6. All elections by the people shall be by bailor. 

The qualification of voters is right. The right 
of the white male citizens of Mexico, v/ho had 
elected to become American citizens, to take part 
in their new country, is justly recognized. The 
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo expressly provides, 
that those Mexicans who should remain in the 
conquered territories, after the 30th day of May, 
1349, should " be considered to have elected to be- 
come citizens of the United States. '' They were 
a conquered people, and the honor of our nation 
required that they should be kindly treated, and 
properly respected. Then just notice how sacred 
the voter is held on election day — then, again, 
all elections by ballot, in order that the voter may 
be able to elude the importunities of the dema- 
gogue, and write upon his ballot the xmtrammelled 
erpressirfi of his free will. 

Section 12, article four, reads as follows: 

"Mcmhers of the legislature shall, in all cases, except 
treason, felony, nr breach of the peace, be privileged from 
arrest, ailM tl)ey .shall not be subject to any civil process 
•clniiiig tite sesoion of the l':gi=lature, aor for fifteen days 



next before the commencement, and after the termination 
of each session." 

Here, again, you see the watchful care of the 
convention, in setting up palisades around the 
rights of the people. Lest some member of the 
legislature might be harassed by the demands of 
a pitiless creditor, and tJius his mind be distracted, 
and rendered unfit for legislation, the operation of 
cinii process is suspended. Salus pojntli svprema 
est lex, is in this section the prominent thought. 

If you examine that part of the constitution 
regulating banking and corporations, and that part 
of it throwing the elections of the several officers 
before the people, or that part guarding against 
State debts, or that part providing for schools, or 
that part providing for its own amendment, or 
those' sections of it holding the property of the 
wife not liable for the debts or to the control of her 
husband, exempting a portion of the homestead, 
and rendering a man disqualified for holding of- 
fice, who shall have been convicted of giving or 
offering a bribe, to procure his election or appoint- 
ment; or, in fine, if you examine the whole con- 
stitution, you cannot fail to see that, to say the 
least, it ranks side by side, in its republican doc- 
trines, in the comprehensiveness of its views, in 
the depthsof its wisdom, and in its practical states- 
man-like features, with the most enlightened con- 
stitutions of the thirty States; and to say that it 
begins where the most enlightened of them leave 
off, and that it has made many a point on the 
route of civil liberty, to which none of them have 
attained, would be a declaration not altogether 
unwarranted by the facts in the case. Having' 
thus shown, Mr. Chairman, that on the score of 
a republican constitution, California is not only 
entitled not to be rejected, but to be admitted, I 
will pass to the consideration of other points. 

Not being able to prevail upon the point of non- 
republicanism in the constitution, the objector 
falls back upon the boundaries of the State, and 
says the State is too large. This objection 1 deny 
to be valid, as against her admission. I therefore 
propose to show, that the State is no larger than it 
should be, and that if it is, it should not prevent 
her admission at the present time. 

The boundaries of the State of California are 
defined by her constitution as follows : 

" Commencing at the point of intersection of the 42d de-' 
gree of north latitude with the 120th degree of longitude 
west from Greenwich, and running south on the line of 
said 120th degree of west longitude until it intersects the 
39th degree of north latitude; thence running in a straight 
line in a southeasterly direction to the river Colco-ado, at a 
point where it intersects the 35th degree of north latitude ; 
thence down the middle of the channel of said river, to the 
boundary line between the United States and Mexico, as 
established by the treaty of May 3Ulh, 18-13; thence running 
west and along said boundary line to the Pacific ocean, 
and extending therein three English miles; thence runping 
in a northwesterly direction, aiid following the direction of 
the Pacific coast to the 4M degree of north latitude; thence 
on the line of said 4i;d degree of north latitude, to the place 
of beginning. Also all the islands, harbors, and hays, along 
and adjacent to tile Pacific coast." 

And includes not far from 145,000 square miles. 
The reasons assigned by the objector are va- 
rious, and we are in duty bound to consider them 
conscientiously made, and to examine them seri- 
atim. 

One of the most prominent of these reasons ia, 
that she contains too much sea-board — too many 
harbors. This is a very plausible objection, and 
without examination, might appear to be entitled 



6 



to weight ; but when examined in connection 
with the facts, I have no fears as to the result, 
because the facts of the case will place this objec- 
tion in the same category with that to the features 
of the constitution. California, as it is well known, 
does not contain quite ten degrees of latitude; but 
from the trending of its coast, it is perceived at 
once, there is more than six hundred geographical 
miles of coast contained between her northern and 
Bouthern parallels; and to be accurate in the mat- 
ter, I addressed the following note to Captain 
Charles Wilkes, of the United States Navy: 

Washington, February 22, ]850. 
Captain CuARfES Wilkfs: 

Dear Sir : Will you do me tlie favor to inform me what 
number of miles of Pacific sea-coast California has, nieasur- 
iug from one headland to another. 

I am, sir, very truly yours, S.\ML. R. THUR,-<TON. 

To this note I received the following reply: 

February ^2, 1850. 
Dear Sir: In answer to your inquiry, respecting the e.\- 
leni of the sea-coast of California, f answer that it is seven 
hundred and filly miles from its southern to its northern 
boundary. Respectfully yours, 

CHARLES WILKES. 
Hon. Saml. R. Thurston. 

It is no part of my wish or design, Mr. Chair- 
man, to conceal or to exaggerate facts. I am 
willing, and even desire, that the case should be 
presented against me in its strongest light. That 
California, with her present limits, contains a very 
large sea-coast, lam willing to admit — it would be 
folly to deny it; but that she contains any large 
amount of good harbors, or harbors that can be 
used to any great extent, save one or two, I as 
frankly deny. Now, sir, in meting out a sea- 
coast to a State, I take it we should not look so 
much to the extent of her coast, as to the availa- 
bility or utility of her harbors. And when you 
urge an objection against the admission of a State, 
on the ground t^at her sea-coast is too large, your 
objection is not valid, unless you can show, also, 
that she monopolizes too many harbors. If, then, 
•while admitting the magnitude of the sea-coast of 
California, I am able to show you that the number 
of her practical harbors are very small — or, in fact, 
that she has not but one single harbor susceptible of 
accommodating any considerable amount of ship- 
ping, or that can ever be the locality of any con- 
siderable town, and that the Bay of San Francis- 
co — the objection to her admission, on this score, 
at once falls to the ground. To this point, there- 
fore, let us direct our attention. 

The harbors of California (for such I will call 
them) are, San Francisco, San Di^o, Bodega, 
Monterey, San Pedro, and Santa Barbara. Four 
of these harbors — San Francisco, Monterey. Santa 
Barbara, and San Diego — I have seen myself, 
and I am frank to say, that before I ever supposed 
I should have occasion for these remarks, at 
view of thehi, I formed the opinion that I enter- 
'tain now, that but two of them were entitled to 
the name of harbor, and but one of the two enti- 
tled to the appellation of a great harbor. This was 
my judgment then. I so minuted down the fact 
in my memorandam book, when I was present at 
them, and such is my judgment now. But I do 
not ask gentlemen to rest the decision on what I 
say — I give them other and better proof, and 

froof, too, which is entitled to the highest credit — 
mean the evidence of Captain Charles Wilkes, 
of the United States navy, who, as it is well 



known, speaks from personal observations, and 
from his knowledge, gained on the spot, as a sci- 
entific navigator. His reputation is too well es- 
tablished to need any support of mine. In his 
work entitled •' Western America," at page 37, 
he says: 

"The hest, and, indeed, the only, harbors in this territory 
[California] are San Di('gn, San Francisco, and Bodega; 
there are, besides, several roadsiearfs, which have been used 
as anchorages during llf fine seuson, (from March to Octo- 
ber,) vix, the Bays of .Alonterey, San Pedro, and Santa Bar- 
bara. * * * * 'I'lie port of San Diego is the most 
southern In the territory of the United States, being i;i fact 
an arm of the sea, in length ten miles, and in width four 
miles — from being land-locked, it is perfectly secure from all 
winds. The entrance is narrow, and easily defended, and 
lias sufficient depth of water — twenty feet at lowest tide. 
The tide rises five feet. The Tonirue of Kelp, three miles 
long by a quarter of a mile broad, ofl" the entrance of the bay; 
must be avoided by large vessels, but small vessels may pas«, 
through it with a. strong breeze; the bank has three fathoms 
water on it. During gales, this kelp is torn up and driven 
into the bay, where il becomes troublesome to vessels, by 
the pressure it brings upon them, either causing them to 
dra^ their anchors, or part their cables. 

"There are many drawbacks to this harbor. The want 
of water is one of them ; the river which furnishes the 
Mission with water disappearing in the dry season, before 
reaching the bay, and the surrounding country may be called 
a barren waste of sand hills. * * * This river, in the 
rainy season, discharges a considerable quantity of water 
into the bay, bringing with it much sand, vvhicii has already 
formed a bar across a part of False bay, rendering it useless; 
and well -<j:round,ed fears may be entertained that it will event- 
ually destroy this harbor also. * * * The whulecotintry 
around San Diego is composed of volcanic sand and mud, 
mixed with scoria. The land is unfit for cidtivat'ron, and 
covered with cacti, one of the many evidences of the poor- 
ness of the soil. This leaves the port of San Diego little lo 
recommend it but the uniform climate, good anchortige, and 
security from all winds." 

I will add, that any man who has seen this har- 
bor, will tell you it is very limited in its capacity — 
notable to contain the shipping now in the Bay of 
San Francisco. This, Captain Wilkes, who has 
been in the harbor and examined it, will tell you; 
and it is a fact well known, that the sands washed 
down from the mountains are ILst. gaining on it, 
and will, at some future day, destroy it. But 
what if it was the best of harbors for safety and 
size.' Of what use is a harbor on the Peninsula 
of California r None. And why.' Because there 
is no country — no trade to support it. So it is with 
San Diego; it neither has any country to build it 
up, nor can it ever carry on any considerable trade 
with the mines. San Francisco commands, and 
ever will command, nearly all the fa.'-ming country, 
and probably all the mines. San Diego is there- 
fore what she will continue to be, o harbor icilhout 
a lown, or business to sxipporl it. And that, and the 
little good soil it commands, must be governed and 
owned by the State of California, or be sustained 
foreverina dependent form,vi\. an enormous expense 
to the Government. I shall have occasion to 
touch on this point when I come lo treat of the 
division of California on 36° 30'. 

It thus being settled, Mr. Chairman, that the 
harbor of San Diego, taken all in all, is but a sec- 
ondary harbor, and one which never can contain 
or accommodate a large amount of shipping, or 
be the locality of any considerable town, we will 
pass on lo an examination of the others. 

Of the Bay of San Juan, not before mentioned, 
forty-five miles north of San Diego, the Captaiii 
says, on page 38 of the same work: '• It is 
' entirely unprotecled, and is a bad roadstead, the 
' bottom being very foul, inside of five fathoms, 
' and the landing at times impossible on actcunl of 



'the surf.*' Yes, sir, not even a decent roadstead, 
much less a harbor, and the landing frequently 
impossible; and yet this is the first and only place 
for forty-five miles north of San Diego, worthy of 
a passing notice. 

We next come to San Pedro, thirty-seven miles 
from San Juan, or eighty-two miles from San Di- 
ego, of which ilie same author says: "It is an open 
' bay, with scarcely any more claims to be called 
' a harbor than San Juan; it is equally exposed, ex- 
' cept from the northwest winds." Of this place, 
and the Bay of San Juan, Captain Wilkes's state- 
ments are fully corroborated by the observations 
of every man who has examined them. "The 
' clifls (says the Captain) along this part of the 
* coast are steep. Water is not to be obtained 
' here, and the little that is required for the supply 
' of a few inhabitants, has to be brought from a 
' distance in the iyilerior." Such, sir, are the har- 
bors, so far, that are to operate to exclude Cali- 
fornia from coming into the Union ! 



As you lay at anchor in this bay, you may look 
directly out on the ocean, with apparently nothing 
to protect you. I recollect well the appearance 
and nature of the harbor, and that the steamer 
Oregon grounded in that bay last October as we 
entered. Indeed, the harbor of Monterey is com- 
paratively an open roadstead. You can neither 
have the advantage of a safe shelter from storms, 
nor of approaching near to shore with your vessel. 
Captain Wilkes himself calls it a "roadstead." 
" The roadstead of Monterey (says he) is at the 
' south end of the bay, and is considered a safe 
' anchorage, though but partially protected from the 
' westerly winds, by Point Pinos." And to show 
further, that this is not only not a good harbor, 
but a dangerous one, allow me to quote from the 
same author: "In November there are frequent 
' short gales from the southeast, which blow from 
' off the high land, rushing down in violent squalls. 
' The most dangerous gales are from the north and 
west, on which side the bay is comphtely open.'" 



We next come to Santa Barbara. This place '! Thus, then, Mr. Chairman, it appears that facts 
is thirty-five miles east by south, from Point Con- j put the harbor of Monterey in nearly the same 
caption, and that point is one hundred and ten ' category with those of San Liuis Obispo, San Juan, 
miles from San Pedro; so that Santa Barbara is ! and Santa Barbara. From Point Pinos (by way 
one hundred and fifty-seven miles from San Diego. ,] of Point Anno Nuava) to the entrance into the Bay 



of San Francisco, a distance of sixty-three miles, 
there is no harbor, or anything looking towards 
one, after you pass the Bay of Monterey. Thus 
it appears, that between the entrance of the Bay 
of San Francisco and San Diego, a distance of 
three hundred and ninety-five or four hundred 
miles, there is not asingle good harbor, and scarcely 
a passable roadstead; and north of the entrance of 
the Bay of San Francisco, to latitude 42P north, 
there is but one harbor, and that is of no account. 
The Harbor of Bodega is ninety miles north of San 
Francisco, and the only harbor north of San Fran- 
cisco, in California; but in the language of Cap- 
tain Wilkes, " it is both small and inconvenient, 
' and cannot be entered, except for vessels of a light 
'draught of water. The anchorage outside is 
' rocky and daTigerous." 

Here, sir, is the simple narrative of the harborsj 
of California, save one, and that the Bay of San 
Francisco. Of the advantages and magnitude of 
this bay, and of its different points, calculated for 
harbors, I shall not speak. Suffice it to say, it 
has but few equals in the world, and among these 
will rank foremost the harbors near Piiget's Sound 
in Oregon. It is a startling truth, that God and 
nature designed the Bay of San Franci-sco as the 
great and principal naval emporium for California; 
and the better to accomplish this end, all the other 
harbors in California appear to have been mis- 
shapen, distorted, and made laughing-stocks, 
when compared with this magnificent bay. Hence, 
you may build a thou:5and railroads to San Diego, 
and toil till you are exhausted to make^jomething 
open roadstead." Such is the testimony borne of ' of that harbor, so long as the entrance to the Bay 



Of this point, the same author speaks as follows: 

" There is scarcely any protectinn, liiough somewhat 
sheltered from the northwest swell, hy the Island of Santa 
Oruz; vessels, however, anchor here, notwithstanding the 
southeast winds blow daring the winter months with great 
violence. At these times, it is necessary for vessels to put 
to sea, and tliis is usually done when indications of these 
storms are seen. There is anchorage within the line of 
Kelp, in five fathoms water, hut is only resorted to, by nav- 
igators who are very desirous of dischargins or cettinj on 
board their cargoes. ' * > The anchorage is had hold- 
ing ground, being hard sand, covered with sea-weed." 

This harbor, then, Mr. Chairman, is merely 
an open roadstead. .Nobody anchors there, except 
"navigators who are very desirous'" of accomplish- 
ing some object — not done from choice, but from 
dire necessity; and if perchance one casts anchor, 
and the indications of a storm appear, in order to 
save his ship, or the lives of himself and crew, he 
must weigh anchor, or slip his cable, and go to sea, 
whether his cargo is on board or not; and for this 
harbor, California is to be excluded from the 
Union, is she? 

San Luis Obispo, is forty miles north of Point 
Conception, and consequently two hundred and 
thirty-two miles from San Diego. This place is 
standing near the sea-shore, with nothing to en- 
title it to the appellation of harbor. Indeed, it has 
so little pretensions to one, or to a decent road- 
stead, that its qualities, for better or for worse, 
were not noticed by Captain Wilkes. I recently 
had occasion to consult a gentleman who had 
spent nearly three years in California, as chaplain 
on board one of our vessels of v^ar, (the Rev. Mr. 
Collon,) who denominated this place as " an 



it by the Representatives from that State. 

From San Luis Obispo to Point Pinos, near 
Monterey, it is about one hundred miles. To 
Monterey, the distance is somewhat more; conse- 
quently, the distance from Monterey to San Diego, 
is not far from three hundred and thirty-five or 
three hundred and forty miles, between which 
points there is not a single place entitled to the name 
of harbor. Monterey itself has little more pre- 
tension ^ this honor; yet this is far from being a 
good hMbor, and is usually called a roadstead. 



of San Francisco remains open, and the bay itself 
remains, so long commerce will shun, nay, s]mrn, 
all other ports in CaHfornia, and congregate to the 
harbor of this future Tyre. Now, Mr. Chairman, 
I submit, that if in meting out the sea-board b»und- 
ary of a State, we are to be governed by the num- 
ber of good harbors, rather than by the naked 
extent of coast, then have I .successfully shown, 
that this objection to the admission of California 
falls to the ground, and shares the same fate as 
that alleged to her Constitution. 



8 



But the objector, being driven from this position, 
flees to another, and that is, tliat the superficial 
area of California is too large. That the area is 
large for a State, is not denied; but that it is larger 
than it ousrht to be, under the circumstances, 1 
emphatically deny. The objector says it is ; I say 
it is not; and here we come to the issue. Inas- 
much as he affirms, the proof lays on him, and 
the reading of the Constitution, and n calculation 
of the area, may make out a primd facie case on 
his^fpart. This throws the burden of proof on 
me, and if I can support my jilea, he must aban- 
don his objection to the admission of California 
on this ground. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, in laying oflf a State, one 
thing should always be regarded, that you include 
within it, if you can, all the means of self-sub- 
sistence — all the resources neceasary to make it a 
powerful State; and among the most important 
of these resources is its agricultural capability. 
In other words, the State should have, if possible, 
soil enough, susceptible of cultivation, to produce 
the indispensable articles of food for the suste- 
nance of its people. I might here quote from wri- 
ters on political economy to prove this, but the 
proposition is so plain as to meet the approbation 
of all well-balanced judgments. Hence, in laying 
off a State, we should not be goveined by the su- 
perficial area contained within its boundaries, so 
much as by the quantity of good soil — not by its 
area, but by its productive land; and proreeding 
upon this principle, the objection against Califor- 
nia, on account of her superficial extent, vanishes. 
It has no good reason to give it life — it is airy 
nothing. 

There is undoubtedly, sir, a very great mis- 
conception in this House, in the minds of individ- 
ual members, and, I mightadd, in the minds of the 



had seen, and from what I had heard from 

people in Oregon, who have traveled over nearly 

I the whole country, formed the opinion that the 

I State of California had not more land, susceptible 

of cultivation, than the State of Massachusetts. 

1 To strengthen my opinion, or to rectify it if wrong, 

I I addressed a note to the Rev. Walter Colton, who 

i had resided in California nearly three years, and 

j had traveled over much of the country, asking 

him his opinion of the agricultural resources of 

I the country, when compared to Massachusetts. 

To that tiote I received the following reply: 

Washington, Feb-ruary H, ISfiO. 
Dear Sir : I am in llie receipt of your letter, of ibis day's 
j date, propogini; ceilain iiKiiiiries in reference to California, 
I and my residence there. 

} I have lived in California nearly three years. The lands, 
I capahle of cultivation, lie mainly between the Pacramento 
; and Siin Joaquin rivers and the sua-board. The valley of the 
San Joatniin, and the irreater portion of the niinins; district, 
I H covered by a lijjht, sandy soil, that can never be made 
j productive. The strip of land on the sea-board is brokf n by 
i a continuous range of liill.>, which run nearly parallel with 
i the coast, for several hundred miles. The physical features 
of California, and the entire absence of rain for more than 
1 six months of the year, will prevent its becoming an im- 
portant agricultural country. Unle.ss a system of extensive 
I irrigation should be resorted to, I doubt if its agricultural 
i yield will be greater than that of the State of Massachusetl.s. 

The wealth of California lies in her mi»es. 
I Vciy respectfully, dear sir, vour obedient servant, 
I ■ WALTER COLTON. 

j Hon. S. R. TiK-RsTov. 

! But even if it does not contain more arable land 
! than the average of our new States, the objection 
■ cannot prevail. Now, I will say that the man can- 
not be found, who ever saw California, and knows 
anything of the country, who would say that Cal- 
ifornia contains more arable land than the State of 
Iowa. No writers, even its most ardent admirers, 
who have ever written on the subject, have ever 
come up to this quantity; and had I the time, I 



people of the States generally, about the extent of !j could procure the testimony of a hundred men, 
cultivable land in the State of California. Though li who have traveled extensively in California, all of 
in area, larger than any State in the Union, save ]i whom would place the extent of arable land within 

Texas, yet in fact, in point of arable land, she is . ~ . — ... ~ 

smaller than any of them, save Vcfmont, New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Con- 
necticut, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. 
Yes, sir, in point of arable land, she is not one 
third as large as the State of Ohio; about one 
fourth as large as Pennsylvania, and not one fifth as 
large as the State of Virginia, reckoning the entire 
superficial area of these latter States. To a man 
who will cast his eye impartially over the map, 
examine its mountains, its deserts, and waste 



the bounds set by Captain Wilkes. Captain 
Wilkes informs you he had "endeavored" to as- 
certain the amount. He is a scientific man, had 
the best maps before him, on which th.e mount- 
ains, valleys, and plains are delineated, and the 
extent of which he measured v/ilh comparative 
accuracy; he had the journals of the best travel- 
ers before him, which he consulted, with a view 
to write a book, on which his reputation — by no 
means insignificant — was staked; and to this was 
added his own knowledge, gained by traveling in 



places, this statement will not appear extravagant; ' the country; and with all these means of informa- 
and still less will it do so, when one has had an ocu- i' tion, and this responsibility before him, he tells 
lar survey of the country. To say nothing of its 11 you that the extent of the arable land west of 
deserts — its plains of floating sand, where nothing jj the mountains, in his judgnient, "cannot exceed 
but the half-starved wolf is seen — the map itself! twelve thousand square miles." Mr. Colton, 
ahows a very large proportion of it to be the loca- ] whose judgment is entitled to respect, tells you 



tions of the most fearful mountains, upon or [ 
among which the cultivator of the soil may look 
in vain for a resting-place. But I do not ask gen- j 
tlemen to rely upon my statement alone — I give ' 
them the declarations of others. 

Captain Wilkes, in the same v/ork to which I j 
have referred, speaking of the arable land which 
California contains, west of the mountains, iiays: 
" It is impossible as yet to give an accurate calcu- 
' lation of the quantity, but an approximation 
' may be arrived at. I have endeavored to do 
* this, and think that it cannot exceed twelve thoxi- 
^sand square miles." I had myself, from what I 



that her productive agricultural resources do not 
exceed those of Massachusetts; and he speaks of 
the whole of California, as defined by her consti- 
tution. And I hazard little in saying, that a ma- 
jority of travelers in California would coine nearer 
"to Mr. Colton 's judgment, than to the estimate of 
Captain Wilkes. It cannot fail to be seen that 
Captain Wilkes speaks with much caution, and 
made his estimation purposely large, in order to 
be within bounds. But, inasmuch as Captain 
Wilkes estimates only the land west of the mount- 
ain range, I will produce more authority to show 
what the country is, lying in that part of ^alifor- 



9 



nia contained between the Colorado and these 
mountains. It is due to truth to say, that this part 
of the State is a barren waste, where desert and 
desolate sand-hills hold converse in ihe gloom of 
their own presence, and where the only song is the 
Vufltlirtg of the passing winds, intermingled with 
the croaking of the famished raven, and the wail- 
ing howl of the hungry and starving wolf. 

In November and December of 1846, Lieutenant- 
Ooionel W. H. Emory, of the United States'army, 
passed through this region, from the junction of 
die Gila, through the pass in the mountains, to 
San Diego. I quote from his journal applying to 
the country east of the mountains: " After cross- 
' ing, [the Colorado] (says he,) we ascended the 
•■ river three quarters of a mile, where we encoun- 
' t^red an immense sand-drifl, and from that point, 
' until we halted, the great highway between So- 
' nora and California lies along the foot of this 
' drift, which is continually, but slowly, encroach- 
' ing down the valley." Their grazing ground i 
was a field of floating sand, save on the shore of 
the Colorado; and when they did halt, they had 
to dig to obtain water for their men. This was 
the S5th of November. In his journal of the next 
day, he says: " The dawn of day found every man 
' on horseback, and a bunch of grass, from the 

• Colorado, tied behind him, on the cantle of his 

• saddle. * * * ^Ve were now fairly on the 
' desert.^' Yes, sir, a desert — so destitute, that the 
horseman must take his grass on his saddle ! That 
night they had to camp without water, save a little 
impregnated water they got, after much time spent 
in digging. "The desert (says he) was almost 

• destitute of vegetation; and on the 27th and 28th 
' we had toiled on, over this desert, and were 
' yet in its midst." He goes on to say, in his 
journal of those days: " Our course was a winding 
' one, to avoid the sand-drifts." " The desert was 
' almost tlestitute of vegetation. V »» The heavy 
' sand proved too much for many horses, and some 
' mules; and all the eiTorls of their drivers could 
' bring them no further than the middle of this 
' dreary desert. About eight o'clock, as we ap- 
' proached the lake, the stench of dead animals, 

• confirmed the report of the Mexicans, and put 
' to flight ail hopes of our being able to use the 
' water." " The desert over which we had passed, 

• (for they had then arrived at water,) ninety miles 
'from water to uater, is an imrnense triangular 

• plain." " It is chiefly covered with yJoafijigsonrf." 
And again: " I have noted the only two patches of 
grass found during the 'Jornada.'" His jour- 
nal, of the 29th of November, says, (hfiving left 
the water, which was impregnated and almost unfit 
for use,) ♦' The day was intensely hot, and the 
' sand deep. The animals, inflated with icater and 
' rushes, gave way by scores. It was a feast day for 

■ (he toolves, which followed in packs, close on our 
' track, seizing our deserted brutes, and making 
' the air resound with their howls, as ihcy battled 

■ for the carcasses." 

Mr. Chairman, I will quote no further. My 
object in quoting what I have, is to show that, 
what appears to be a large tract of country, con- 
tained within the boundary of California, and lying 
between the Colorado and the mountains, is, in 
fact, of no value whatever, and consequently can- 
not affect the estimate of the arable land made by 
Captain Wilkes. With these proofs, then, I ap- 
prehend I have successfully maintained my posi- 



tion, atid that if no better objections can be raised, 
than the extent of her area, California is entitled 
to be admitted. 

But, Mr. Chairman, granting, for the sake of 
argument, that California is all good land, then 
the objection raised, under the circumstances, 
should not prevail . Whether California ultimately 
makes two States, or remains in one, it is all the 
same to the Union, so far as wealth is concerned. 
The wJioIe country will be inside the pale of the 
Republic, and to the Union the result is the same 
either way, with the diflference of expense here- 
after named. If she ultimately becomes too over- 
grown, the Constitution of the United States points 
out a way by which she may be divided into two 
States; and if she does not, she will remeiin a 
State as she is. Now, the number of square 
miles in each State of the Union is as follows: 

Extent of Slates in square miles. 

Delaware . .• 2,120 

Marvland U,(K'0 

Virginia 61,352 

Nortli Carolina. . . . ..45,500 

South Carolina 28,000 

Georgia 58,000 

K-;iniicky 37,680 

Tennessee 44,000 

Louisiana 46,431 

Mitisijsippi 47,147 

Alabama 50,722 

Missouri 67,360 

Arkansas 52,198 

Florida 59,269 

Total slave States. .610,7t'8 
Texas 3-25,520 

936,318 
District of Columbia iO 



Maine 35,000 

Vermont 8,000 

New Hampshire 8,030 

Massachusetts 7,250 

Rhode Inland 1.300 

Connoclieut 4,750 

New York '16,000 

New Jersey 6,851 

Pennsylvania 47,000 

Ohio 39,904 

Indiana 33,809 

lliinoiri: 55,405 

Michigan .». . .56,243 

Iowa 50,914 

Wisconsin 53,9:i24 

Total free States 45't,340 

Calilornia 145,000 

539,340 



936,."363 
Free Statef? 599,3-10 



357,028 
By this exhibit it appears, that though Califor- 
nia might be divided into two States hereafter^ 
neither would be so large, when in comparison 
with some of the largest, as to create any uneasi- 
ness, providing she was al! good land; but whgn 
we consider the facts of the case, as I have given 
them, relative to her arable land, this uneasiness 
disappears. Beside this, there is a precedent in 
point for her admission as she is. Texas, it will 
be seen, contains upward of three hundred and 
twenty-five thousand square miles, while Califor- 
nia contains but about one hundred and forty-five 
thousand. Texas, if divided, as she may be, will 
make four States, each of which will contain over 
eighty-one thousand square miles, or into fi\e 
Slates, each containing upward of sixty-five thou- 
sand, while California, if divided as she may be» 
will make two States, each containing about pev- 
enty-two thousand square miles. And then if you 
consider the organized States, in reference to free 
and slave territory, the friends of the latter cannot 
object on this score. While the free States will 
contain in all, after California is admitted, but 
about six hundred thousand square miles, the slave 
States will contain rising nine hundred and thirty- 
six thousand square miles, or rising three hundr-ed 
and thirty-seven thousand square miles more than 
the free Slates. This ought to satisfy. Therefore, 
Mr. Chairman, I again subrai'., whether I have not; 
removed the objection on this point also. 

The next objection which I shall consider, and 
which is raised, and put forth in the controversy^ 



10 



with much tenacity, is, that California has not 
been regularly organized into a State — in other 
words, that she has formed n State constitution, 
without previous permission being given by Con- 
gress. This objection labors under a disadvantage, 
m this, that it strikes the generosity of the country 
unfavorably; for if the State is in all other respects 
entitled to come in, or if she should be admitted, 
had this assent been given, the man of generous 
feelings will tell you, that if it is law to keep her 
out, it is not kind. But in examining this point, it 
should always be reinembered, that there is no 
clause or feature in the Constitution, requiring the 
frevious assent of Congress to be given — in other 
worda, it nowhere appears that it would be uncon- 
Btitutional to admit a State, organized out of our 
territory without the previous consent of Congress. 
It may be said, that such is the precedent of the 
Government, and therefore should be followed. I 
reply, that the converse has also been the prece- 
dent of the Government, as I will show directly. 
The clause of the Constitution, on the subject of 
admitting new States, is in these words: 

" New States may be admitted by the Congress into this 
Union, but no new State shall be formed or erectf^d wilhiii 
the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed 
by the junction of two or more State.s, or parts of States, 
without the consent of the legislatures of the States con- 
cerned, as well as of Congress." 

One cannot fail to perceive, tSiat there are two 
distinct parts to this clause — the one ending with 
the word "Union," and the other the balance 
of the clause. The first part evidently contem- 
plates the formation and admission of new States, 
not formed from any other State or parts of States, 
or within the jurisdiction of any other Stale in the 
Union, at the time of the formation of such new 
States, It evidently contemplates, then, the ad- 
mission of new States, formed from territory, or 
from lands not previously included, in whole or in 
pan, in any other State. The preliminaries, both 
of formation and admission, appear to have been 
left wholly unprovided for. Tiie second part as 
plainly contemplates, that a new State may be 
formed within the Jurisdiction of another, being a 
member of the Union at the time, or by the junc- 
tion of tv/o or more Statesi, or parts of States. But 
out of duty, contemplated to be owed by theGeneral 
Government to the State or States in or out of 
which the new State might be formed, the Consti- 
tution very wisely provided, tliat this should not 
be done without the consent of the State or States 
interested. So much is provided for the protection 
of the Slates; and then, lest this might be attempted 
to be done, by the consent of the States concerned, 
to the detriment of the General Government her- 
self, the Constitution took care to declare, that it 
should not be done without the consent of the 
General Government also. Hence, while the Con- 
stitution ckarly makes it unlawful to form a new 
State within the jurisdiction of another State, or 
by a junction of two or more States or parts of 
States, wiihobt the consent of ihc Stale or States 
concerned; and if such consent should be given, 
then, without the consent of Congress in adtrttion, 
it nowhere makes it unlawful to form a new State 
out of kjrrilories, for the purpose of admission, 
without the previous consent of Congress. To 
form a new State within the jurisdiction of another 
State, or by the junction of two or more States, or 
parts of States, is made unlawful expressly by 
the Constitution; but to form a new S*.ate out of a 



territory, for the purpose of admission, is not 
made unlawful, either expressly, or by implica- 
tion. Now, then, the language of the law is, ex- 
pressio unius, est exclusio altsrius, which, translated 
liberally, nnay come to read, to declare that one of 
two things mentioned or had in view, shall be unlaw- 
ful to be done, is an expression negative, that the 
other may be done lawfully; and when I speak of 
the people of a territory forming a State for admis- 
sion, I mean to be understood that they are there 
in such territories, by the consent of the Generai 
Government. Now, here is a right to object to the 
formation of a new Slate within the jurisdiction of 
another, or created by the junction of .wo or more 
States or parts of Stales, given to the General Gov- 
ernment by the Constitution; but the right to object 
to the formation of a State out of a territory, fot 
the purpose of admis.sion, is notgiven to this Gov- 
ernment by the Constitution. The Constitution 
says: 

"The powers not delegated to the United Slates liy the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved 
to the States reppeetively, or to the people." 

Now, the unconditional power to form new 
States in the jurisdiction of another, or by the 
junction of two or more States, or parts of Statee, 
is prohibited by the Constitution to any State or 
States, while the power to object, in such a case, 
is delegated to the United States. But the power 
to object against the people of a territory forming 
a State government, for the purpose of admission* 
is not delegated to the United States, nor is tht 
power delegated to the United States to "form a 
State there. Where, then, is this power? " Re- 
served to the people" of the territories, unquestion- 
ably. Hence, I think it is clear, beyond cavil, 
that the people of a territory alone have the con- 
stitutional right to form a State government, for 
the purpose of admission into the Union, without 
the previous consent of Congress being given— 
for if Congress has a right to claim that its pre- 
vious consent should be given, this right must re- 
sult from a delegated power; and the feet that that 
part of the Constitution just read, which gives to. 
Congress kindred powers, and the right to object 
in kindred cases, makes no mention of such a 
power, even by implication, is conclusive proof to 
my mind that no such power was intended to be 
given, and consequently, that the right to deter- 
mine upon forming a constitution, was intended to 
be left to the people of the territories themselves. 
And in support of this position, I will extract from 
a report made in the Senate of the United States, 
some time during the last session, by one of the 
ablest men of that body, [Mr. BERRIE^f.] This 
report was made by that gentleman, from the com- 
mittee to whom was referred the subject of creating 
and admitting California into the Union, as a 
State. Plere is the extract: 

" The power conferred by the Constitution on Congress 
is, to admt new SttUes, not to create them. According to tlie 
throry of our Goveinmciit, tlic creation of a State is an act 
of popular sr.vereignty, not of ordinary legislation. It is by 
the will of the people, of whom the State is composr.d, as- 
sembled in convention, that it is created. Coii^rcsa may 
provide for t/ie a.5:;eiiibling of a convention, but it is the will 
of the people, expressed in that convention, which alone 
creates a State ; and until that is done, the power conferred 
by tlm Constitution on Congress, 'to admit new States' into 
the Union is not called into exercise. There is notliing 
upon which it can operate. In the opinion of the commit- 
tee, then, this bill ought not to pass, because it proposes the 
exeicise by Congress of a power not vested by the Consti- 
tution in the nutioual legislature, namely, the creation of a. 
new Stale." 



11 



These words explain themselves. It is worth 
while, however, to notice with what caution he 
lays it down in italics, that " Congress may pro- 
vide for the assembling of a convention" to form a 
State constitution. May, sir — yes, may — not must. 
There is nothing imperative on Congress to do so, 
not enjoined by the Constitution, but it is left un- 
provided for. Now, sir, what is plainer than the 
position, that if Congress is not obliged by the 
Constitution to make .such provisions for the assem- 
bling of conventions, and if the Constitution does 
motprchibit the people of the territories from assem- 
bling for that purpose, the people violate no prin- 
ciple of constitutional law by assembling for this 
object.' If this proposition be not true, then, in- 
asmuch as Congress is not obliged to make pro- 
vision for conventions to form State constiuuions, 
the people are left wholly without any constitu- 
tional means of erecting a State, and applying for 
admission. No doctrine, sir, is more shocking to 
popular rights than this; and it would be discredit 
to a constitution to leave such a right unprovided 
for. The right of the people to ass^emble in con- 
vention, and to forma State constitution, prepara- 
tory to application for admission, being thus vin- 
dicated by argument, lei us turn to the prece- 
dents. 

The first case in point is that of Vermont. 
This Slate was formed from a part of the territory 
of New York, by the consent of the latter State, 
subsequently obtained, and without the previous 
consent of Congress. And although the Constitu- 
tion clearly requires the consent of Congress, in 
such cases, yet it has been argued, and with much 
plausibility, and in conformity to law as applied 
in other cases, that this consent of Congress may 
be subsequent or anterior to the formation of a 
new State, within the jurisdiction of another, or by 
the junction of two or more States, or parts of 
State.3, on the ground that subsequent assent to a 
previous act makes the unauthorized act a lawful 
i)ne, and binding. But ce-rtain it is, that if Con- 
gress can constitutionally admit a State, formed 
within the Jurisdiction of another, without the 
consent of Congress having been previously given, 
it can admit a State formed from a territory 
without such consent. Application for the admis- 
sion of this State was made to Congress, then 
sitting at Philadelphia, February 9, 1791 , her con- 
stitution having been formed December 25, 1777; 
yet the Legislature of New York did not give its 
consent till March 6, 1790, three years after Ver- 
mont formed her constitution. Vermont was ad- 
mitted March 4, 1791, (see Book of the Consti- 
tution, page 404;) and if this act of Congress 
means anything, it means that in the judgment 
of Congress, its own previous consent to the for- 
mation of constitutions is notj a necessary pre- 
requisite, in any case, for the constitutional admis- 
sion of new States into the Union. 

The State of Tennessee is another case in point. 
This State was formed out of territory ceded to 
the United States by the Legislature of North 
Carolina, in 1789, and the cession completed by 
conveyance, made by ths Senators of that State, 
February 25, 1790, and accepted by act of Con- 
gress of the 2d of April following. On February 
7, 1796, the people of that territory, having as- 
sembled for that purpose, without the previous 
consent of Congress having been given, f.dopted a 
Slate constitution, and applied for admission in 



April following, and the State was formally ad- 
mitted, January 1, 1796, on that application, (see 
Book of the Constitution, page 405.) 

The State of Maine was formed from a part of 
the commonwealth of Massachusetts; and her 
constitution was formed by a convention of the 
people, without the previous assent of Congress. 
The petition of this convention for admission, was 
p/esented in the House of Representatives of the 
United States, December 8, 1819; and the act for 
the admission of Maine, on this petition, was ap- 
proved March 3, 1820. Flere is the preamble to 
the act of admission, by which it will be seen, that 
the consent of Massachusetts alone had bse^ 
given to the separation, and the subsequent con- 
vention of the people of the district of Maine; and 
the facts in the case, too, sustain the preamble: 

"Whereas, by an act of the Slate of Massaohuseits, passed 
on the 19th day of June, in the year 1819, entitled 'an act 
' reiatin},' to the separation of the district of Maine from 
' Massachusetts proper, and fortnins the. same into a separate 
' and independent State,' the pe(;ple of that part of Massa- 
chusetts, heretofore known as the district of Maine, did, 
with the consent of the Legislature of the said State of Mas- 
sachusetts, form themselves into an independent State, and 
did establiah a constitution for the governnie :t of the same, 
agreeably to the provisions ofthe s;iidact; therefore," &c. 

Now, sir, I shall not detail cases further, but 
will cite you to Michigan, Florida, Iowa, and 
Texas, as furnishing examples where Congresa 
has admitted new State.i into this Union, with 
constitutions formed, without the previous consent 
of that body having been given; and it is a well- 
known fact, that Iowa formed her constitution 
without the previous consent of Congress, and 
that she did it expressly on the ground, that Con- 
gress had no right to claim that this assent should 
be first given; and it does really appear to me, 
that the case is too plain for doubt — that whether 
you examine the Constitution alone, with refer- 
ence to this point, or examine it in connection with 
the precedents heretofore made by the Govern- 
ment — California has a clearand indisputable right 
to come into the L^nion as a State. 

But we are told, Mr. Chairman, that the forma- 
tion of this State government of California, is not 
the spontaneous result of the people's own free 
v/ill. It is said that General Taylor and his Cab- 
inet, by a combination of means and influences, 
brought It about; that it is a forced act, and that a 
State government has been crammed down the 
throats of the people there, to avoid certain re- 
sponsibilities. Whatever General Taylor or hia 
Cabinet may have intended, I cannot say, but 
what some of the facts are, I do know, and dare 
say them. And I do say — first, that if General 
Taylor and hia Cabi.iet had tried to dictate terms 
to the people there, they could not have succeeded; 
secondly, that they did not try; and thirdly, that 
the project of fortning a State government was the 
project of the people; and it would have been done 
had General Riley never issued a proclamation for 
the purpose. General Riley's proclamation was 
forced by the complaints and demands of the suf- 
fering people of California, in.stead of his procla- 
mation compelling the people to move. Instead of 
it being as co;Uerided by the opponents to the ad- 
mission, the facts are reversed. 

Tiie treaty of Gaudalupe Hidalg-o, restorin 
peace between the United States and Mexico, waa 
concluded on the 2d day of February, 1848; and 
after being ratified by both Governments, waa 
exchanged at ducretaro, on the 30lh day of May 



V' 



12 



following:. This left California with a govern- 
ment rfe/acfo, which, under the circumslrinces, was 
little belter than no government. In the month of 
April of the same year, the gold mines were dis- 
covered, bursting forth with 'an exp!o.sion destined 
to shake the world, the light of whose fire shot its 
brilliant rays athwart the globe, with almost the 
velocity of lightning, fighting up the pathway of 
myriads flocking to the .scene. It was nothing 
more than what the people of California had a 
right to expect, that the Government of the United 
States would form some kind of civil government 
for them that very session of Congress, which did 
not adjourn till the 14th day of August following; 
and like orderly people, they wailed patiently the 
rcsnit. If you consult the facts in the case, you 
will find, that, not until some time in December, 
1848, after they had heard Congress had adjourned 
without giving them a government, did they move j 
iti the matter. Some time in December, 1848, (i | 
have not the precise days,) some of the people of 
California met at San Jose, and recommended that 
i convention should be held at that place in March 
following, for the purpose of forming a State gov- 
ernment, preparatory to being admitted into the 
Union. Some rime the last of the same month, or 
:he first of January, San Francisco responded to 
.his call, by holding a preliminary convention, 
It which a corresponding committee was raised for 
iie purpose of communicating with other parts of 
;he ■ territory on the subject. iVIontercy, Sacra- 
Tiento, and Sonoma, responded in their turn, by 
limilar meetings. At these preliminary conven- 
.ions, there were delagates chosen to meet at San 
rose, in conformity to the recommendation of 
;he meeting at that place. But the corresponding 
iommittee, chosen at San Francisco, supposing 
here would not be time for the districts of San 
Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Diego, and Log 
ingeles, to send delegates to the San Jose con- 
tention, to come off in March, recommended the 



and chose in his stead three justices of the peace 
for the district. But let it be recollected that Gene- 
ral Riley was governor, and he had been instructed 
to support the laws of the de facto government, li 
would be very natural, therefore, for the governor 
to interpose in behalf of these half barbanc laws, 
which the skillful hand of American civilization 
v/as proceeding to demoli.sh. He did so — issued 
his proclamation denouncing the movement of the 
people, and vindicated the majesty of the law. 
This demonstration on the part of General Riley, 
was about the 1st of June, and on the 3d of June, 
he issued his proclamation for a State convention. 
This latter act of General Riley, although the 
people did not recognize his power to do it, was 
merely in conformity with the feelings of the peo- 
ple; and there is no doubt, tliat it was one cause, 
if not the sole, why it was issued. To show this, 
it is only necessary to state, that on the same 3a of 
June, after General Riley had interfered with the 
district legislation of the people, and before they 
knev/ he was going to issue his proctaKiaticn 
for a convention, the legislative assembly of San 
Francisco issued a sort of counter proclamation 
to Genera! Riley's prcmi.nciamienlo, in which he 
had denied the legality of the legislative acts of 
the assembly. In this proclamation of the legis- 
lative assembly of San Francisco, they recom- 
mended a State convention to be held at San Jose, 
to form a constituiion. And the reason why the 
legislative council recommended this convention 
was, that news had reached there, that Congrtsa 
had again adjourned without forming for the peo- 
ple of California a territorial govern.^ient. In 
ihis proclamation, they deny the right of General 
Riley to interfere with their matters. This Quasi 
military government set heavily on the necks of 
t'reemen. Now, mind you, the people, through 
this council, had called the convention at San .Tose, 
while General R.iley had called it at Monterey. 
Let it be remembered, too, that all this had been 



rollowing May — that is, May, 1849 — as the most i} done before the alleged agentof the Administration 



suitable time for the convention to assemble. This 
brought about a misunderstanding, and the whole 
natter fell through in consequence. 

A portion of the delegates chosen — when and 
where, I have before said — nevertheless, met at 
3an Francisco early in March, 1849, and pub- 
lished an address to the people of California, rec- 
ommending them to choose delegates in their 
respective districts, to meet in August following, 
[1849,) to form a State constitution. But from this 
;ime on, the people began to meet with many dif- 
kulties, growing out of the inefficiency of their 
government, particularly with the town council of 
San Francisco. These difficulties finally grew 
nto an open rupture. By this time, the people 
lad become so numerous, and pro[)erty so abund- 
int, that there was an absolute necessity for 
iomething more practical—more efficient — in the 
'orm of government. The people took the matter 
nto their own hands; — not by force and disorder, 
)Ut in true civic style. They assembled at San 
Francisco, and chose a legislative assembly of fif- 
een members for the district of San Francisco; 



had stepped foot on the soil of California. The 
people there had been praying for deliverance, as 
earnestly as ever did the Israelites to be delivered 
from the oppressions of Pharoah. Time, and lime 
again, had llieir groans been heard up to Oregon, 
muttering over our hills, and down our valet, and 
coming down to the hearth -stones of us all. And 
we, too, prayed sincerely for their deliverance. 

On the 4th day of June, the Hon. T. Butler 
King — thi.s so-called genius of the. Administration 
— this man who, some would make us believe, is 
able to devour human rights and the liberties of the 
people, as easily and greedily as a tiger his prey — 
arrived at San Francisco, setting his foot for the 
first time on Californiasoil. In company with him 
was the Hon. W. M. Gv.in, Senator elect from 
that State. These were two distinguished men, 
just from the States, and one just from the haljs of 
Congress; and there is nothing remarkable in (he 
fact, that the people should want to hear from the 
States, and why no government liad been provided 
for theiTi. Consequently, soon afterward, a writ- 
ten call was circulated for a mass meeting, ta 



Sacrarnento and Sonoma followed the example \\ come off in the public square. The meeting did 



)f their more powerful neighbor. The assembly 
or San Francisco proceeded to enact laws for the 
listiict; Sacramento and Sonoma did the same. 
rhe assembly at San Francisco aholuhcd by laic 
hie office cf alcalde, that refuse of Mexicanism, 



come off. Mr. King, Mr. Gwin, Mr. Burnett, 
and others, addressed the people; and to show 
you that the people were not led by General Riley, 
or by any one else, allow me to say, that a gentle- 
man came forward and proposed to the meeting to 



13 



adopt General Riley 's proclamation as the basis 
for a State- convention, which question being put 
to vote, was voted down almost unanimously. 
Another gentleman came forward to prove by ar- 
gument, that General Riley was right in denoun- 
cing the legislative council of the district of San 
Francisco. The people were so indignant, to 
think that General Riley should have taken the 
course he had, that they refused to hear his apolo- 
gist, and hissed him off the stand. The meeting, 
however, voted to hold a convention to form a 
constitution, and to secure its accomplishment, 
raised a corrt^sponding committee of five members 
to attend to getting it up. After taking the sub- 
ject into consideration, the committee thought it 
proper, inasmuch as General Riley had called a 
convention, and to produce union and preserve 
good order mean time, to issue a circular, recom- 
mending aState convention, and adopting the plan 
of General Riley as to time and place, and repre- 
sentation, in part. They at the same time re- 
commended a diffirent representation from some 
of the districts, from what General Riley had, and 
their recommendation was followed. In this way, 
sir, that convention got together, assembling on 
the 1st day of September. A quorum not meet- 
ing, the committee adjourned over till the third, 
when- a quorum assembled and proceeded to or- 
ganize, and then to busines.g. This is the sim- 
ple narrative of the facts; and who can look at it, 
sir, and see those sons of American freedom, under 
circumstances more exciting and ijiore embar- 
rassing than rarely fall to the lot of man, strug- 
gling alike against oppression, and for the bless- 
ings of civil government, without feeling proud to 
own them as Americans — as being fresh evidence, 
previously so forcibly illustrated by the pioneers 
of Oregon, that men rightly educated are capable 
of self-government; and that the American, where- 
cver he goes, carries the fundamental principles of 
his government enshrined in his bosom. And for 
this noljle example, for this tribute to his country's 
glory, and this fidelity to her institutions and 
laws — ay, sir, for this almost idolatrous worship 
of our glorious country — will you spurn him from 
your side .' Will you cast him from you, and 
drive him away, when he comes back to you, toil- 
worn, weary, with another dazzling gem in his 
hand, whicii he prays to be permitted to place in 
the diadem of the nation .' Oh, sir, where is your ; 
heart, sfnd that generous warm blood of yours, if i 
you do not step forward, and welcome him, and j 
take hirn by the hand, and lead him to your couii- ; 
try'.-J altar, and allow him, as he kisses the book, ' 
to swear, for himself and his posterity, allegiance j 
and everlasting fidehty to the Union.' | 

Now, Mr. Chairman, after this narration of the j 
facts as they exist in the history of the movements ! 
of the people of that country, I apprehend there j 
will be few, very few, individuals who will have i 
the hardihood to pretend, that the formation of a : 
State government by the people of California, was i 
not in consonance with their fcflings, that it was . 
not the spontaneous result of their oion desires, or i 
that such a government would not have been j 
formed, if General Riley had never issued his 

froclamation, or Mr. King never seen Cahfornia. 
knov/ a great deal has been .said, sir, about Mr. | 
King's instruction.?, and what he may have proba- 1 
bly done. A great many men see wonders in the j 
caution with which those instructions are written; 



and because Mr. Clayton tells Mr. King that the 
government formed by the people there, must ori- 
ginate with themselves, and be the result of their 
own choice, they suppose, and so argue, that he 
meant the converse, and that Mr. King so under- 
stood it. Well, sir, imagination is a fine_ thing, 
and yet, sometimes, it is not so fine. And if some 
gentlemen will read a work or two on disordered 
mental action, they will find it is sometimes very 
easy, when the mind is peculiarly inclined, to see 
hobgoblins and ghosts where there are none, and 
out of the radiant angel. Truth, to make a Fiend 
clad in fiery garments. Because Mr. Clayton tells 
Mr. Kingfhathe,Mr.King,isv/ellacquainted.with 
the views of the President, "and can, with proprt- 
'ety, suggest to the people of California the adpp- 
' tion of measures best calculated to give them 
« effect," they argue that it was undoubtedly true, 
that in a private interview between Mr. King and 
the President, the President told Mr. King verb- 
ally just what he wanted done, and how he was 
to manage, and then got his Secretary to write hia 
instructions so as to meet the case. If this be 
true, it certainly manifests a little more shrewd- 
ness than some are willing to allow to the Presi- 
dent. But if there is any fraud here, we must take 
the best evidence we can get to prove or disprove 
it, and trust the fate of the case upon it. By ft 
resolution which passed the House December 31, 
1849, the President is taken into the inquisitorial 
court, in this wise: 

"Whether, since the last session of Congress, any person 
has been by him appointed either a civil or military governor 
of C.ilifoinia and New Mexico ; if any military or civil gov- 
ernor iiatj beeii appointed, their name;? and their componsa- 
tinn; if a military and civil governor has been united in on'5 
person, whether any additional compensation has been 
given for said duties, and the same. 

" Also, that he be requ<?sttd to ccinmiinicate to this House 
whether any agent, or aijents, or other persons, have been 
appointed by tlie President, or any of the departments of the 
government, and sent to California or New Mexico, or rec- 
ognized in said territr.rif s by ibitf government, or authorized 
to orsanize the people of California or Now Mexino into a 
government, or to aid or advise them in such organization ; 
or whether such agent, civil or military governor, was in- 
strui ted or directed to'aid, preside over, or be present at, tl» 
assembly of a body of persons, called a convention in Cr.li 
foinia, to control, aid, advise,, direct, or participate in an> 
manner in the deliberations of that body of persons ; if anj, 
the names of such agent, or agents, and their compensation. 
] "Also, that the Piesident be requested to inform '.his House 
I whrther the E.xecutive, or either of the departments, have 
j sent any agent, or agents on the part of this Government, to 
j California or New Mexico, to aid or advife the peoph; of 
I those territories as to the fornriation of a government lor 
I thcinselviis; and if si:ch agent or ngents have been sent. 
; who they are, and their compensation. 
j " Also, that the President he respectfully rf questeil to 
' communicate to this Hou?e all Ihe instructions given to su<:h 
governor, civil or military, i)i California or New Mexico, or 
to any officers of the army of the United States, or any 
other persons who may have been sent by this Government tO; 
New Mexico or C;ilifornia, and the proeUunalions and coijli 
municaiions by them made to the people of said territories, 
as well as the entire correspondence of such agents or gov- 
ernor with tins Government. 

"And al;o, whtther any person or persons have be«n 
authorized by this' Government, or any of its departments, 
to appoint and direct the elections in said tenilnries, nni 
determine the qualifications of the voters at the hv.uif : and 
whether any laws have been created by any supposed gov- 
ernment in California ; and if so, what lawj .' 

" And that the President be requested to oonimunicate to 
this House, all correspondence held by this Government 
with any persons in California and New Mexico, relative to 
the fornration of a governnipnt for the said territories, by 
the inhabitants thereof; and whether any census of citizens-, 
of said territories has been male ; and that the same, if 
made, bi; communicated to this House: also, all similar 
instructions that were given to simil.ir officers or agents by 
the late Executive, and all similar information oi' whicL 



14 



the Deparimenl of Stale had possession, and. similar mat- 
ters, at rhti expiration of the term of office of the late 
Presiilent." 

To which, under date of January 21, 1850, the 
President responds as follows: 

" On coming into office, I round the niihiarycommaniiant 
of the d.'partinent of California, exercising llie functions of 
civil governor in that territory, and left, as [ \va^', to act 
under llie treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, without the aid of 
any Icgivlative provision' establishin?; a goverument in that 
territory, I thought it best not to di:;rurb that arrangement, 
made undir my predecessor, until Congresa should take 
some action on that suliject. I Ihertfore did not inlerftre 
with the jiovvi'rs of the military commandant, who con- 
tinued to exercise the I'uiictions of civil governor as before, 
but I made no such appointment, conferred no such author- 
ity, and liav- allowed no increased compcnsapion to the 
commandant for his services. 

" With a view to the faithful execution of the treaty, so 
far as lay in the pjwer of the Executive, and to enable Con- 
gress to act at tiie present session, with as full knowledge 
and as Utile dilficnlty as possible, on all matters of interest 
in those territories, I sent Ihe Hon. Thomas Batler King as 
bearer of dispatches to California, and certain officers to 
Calilbrnia and New Mexico, whose duties are particularly 
defined in the accompanying letters of instruction, ad- 
, dressed to them severally by the proper departments. 

"{ did not hesitate to express to the people of those terri- 
tories my desire that each territory should, if prepared to 
comply with the requisitions of the Constitution of the 
United States, form a plan of a State constitution, and sub- 
mit the same to Congress, with a prayer for admission into 
the Union as a State ; but I did not anticipate, suggest, or 
authorize the establishment of any such govermnent with- 
out the assent of Congress, nor did I authorize any Gavern- 
ment agent or officer to interfere with, or exercise any influ- 
ence or control over, th ^ election of delegates, or over any 
convention, in making or modifying their domestic institu- 
tions, or any of the pnjvisionsof their proposed constitution. 
On the contrary, the insinictions given by my orders ivere, 
that all measures of domestic policy adopted by the people 
of California must originate solely with themselves; that 
while the Executive of the United States was desirous to 
protect them in the formation of any government, republi- 
can in its character, to be at the proper lime submitted to 
Congress, yet it was to be distinctly understood, that the plan 
of such a government must at the .same time be the result of 
their own deliberate choice, and originate with themselves, 
without the interference of the Executive." 

To make myself still better satisfied in the mat- 
ter, (for I must confess, I was anxious that this 
charge should turn out to be false, lest its truth 
mis:ht injure the success of California,) I addressed 
io Mr. King the following letter: 

Washington, February 14, 1850. 

Sir : Will you do me the favor to answer me Uie follow- 
ing questions, specifically: 

1. When did you leave the States for California, and when 
did you reach San Franci.-cn, and when and where for the 
first lime in California did you see General Riley. 

2. Did tlui President of the United States, or any member 
of his Cabinet, alany time, give you any verbal instructions 
ivhat to say to General Riley, or the people of California, or 
■advi.se yoi] what to say to them either publicly or privately. 

',i. Did the President, or any member of his Cabinet, either 
officially or otherwise, request or advise you to influence the 
people of California to exclude slavery from their State, or 
to estahiifh the boundaries of the State as they now are, or 
1.1 any other way. 

4. Did the President, or any member of his Cabinet, ever 
express their views to you, as to whether it would or would 
not be polioy for the peoi)le of California to exclude slavery 
from the Siate.' 

lam aware, sir, {have no right to put the above questions 
to you, and you are under no obligation to answer them ; 
but tJie inteirsL* of the people of California are at stake, and 
consequently, the interests of Oregon. Therefore, I am 
^xnxioiis to he iidormed, and I hope you will answer th'>m. 
Your?, truly, &c., SAMUEL R. THURSTON. 

Hon. T. BtJTLER King. 

To this letter, I received the following reply: 
Washington, February 15, 1850, 

Sin. : I have the honor to acknowlcdiie the receipt of your 
■uote of yratf rdaj", and answer with pleasure the questions 
".ontainfid in it, in their order. 

1st. I left the port of Savannah on the 22d day of April 



last, and arrived at San Francisco on the morning of the 4tlj 
of June. I saw General Riley in California, for the first 
time, about the 15th of .June. I do not recollect precisely 
the day, nor had I any communication with him, verbal or 
written, until that time. 

2d. The President of the United States did not, at any 
lime, nor did any member of his Cabinet, give me any verbal 
instructions what to say to General Riley, or to the people 
of California, or wliat to say to lliem, publicly or privately. 

3d. The President of the United States did not, nor did 
any member of his Cabinet, olhcially or otherwise, request 
or advise me to influence the people of California to exclude 
slavery from tlieir State, or to establish the boundaries 
thereof, .is they now are, or in any other way. 

4th. The President of the United States never did, at any 
time, nor did any member of his Cabinet, express their 
views to me, as to whether it would or would not be policy 
for the people of California to exclude slaveiy from their 
State. 

I am, with very great respect, your obedient servant, 
T. BUTLER KING. 

Hon. Samuel R. Thurston, &c., &c. 

Having got this reply, and having heard some 
opponent to the admission of California suggest 
the idea of putting Mr. King on to the stand, to 
testify in open court, or to answer questions, I 
asked him if he was willing to be thus catechised, 
to which he replied in the atftrmative. So there 
is an open field, and gentlemen can be gratified, if 
the House desire it. 1, for one, desire no secrecy — 
no conniving; I am anxious for n fair and full 
discussion, for I have not, nor have 1 ever had, a 
doubt that the claims of California to be ad- 
mitted, will override every objection that can be 
made against it. Like the diamond, the more you 
rub it, the brighter it will shine. 

Now, sir, 1 was at San Francisco between two 
and three weeks, while the California convention 
was in session at Monterey. During all this time, 
Mr. King was prostrated on a bed of sickness, 
and most of the time his life was despaired of. I, 
too, had heard the story that Mr. King had been 
sent out to California to dictate terms to the people 
there — to lead them by the hand; but I had heard 
his purpose was not to make it a free State, but a 
I slave State. I interested myself, therefore, to 
inquire, while there, what Mr. King'.'? influence 
was with the people; and I soon found out, that 
whatever influence he might have with the mem- 
bers of his party, he had none v.'hatever v/ith the 
Democratic party — for they had taken up with the 
same idea, that he had been sent out by the Admin- 
istration for political purposes, among which was, 
to make California a Whig State; and so suspicious 
were they of it, that if Mr. King had advised them 
to any particular course, they would lia\^ been 
very likely to reject it for the reason that he had 
advised it. Like the rat in the fable, they would 
have replied, that the suggestion might be "meal," 
or it might be something they " should not like 
quite so well." It is certainly a fact, that Mr. 
King never stepped foot into the hall of the con- 
vention, or ever was at Monterey in his life; 
and it is also certain, and the facta show it, that 
he had no more instrumentality in shnping the 
course of the convention, than you or I had; nor 
had General Riley, or General Taylor, or his 
Administration; and in proof that my present 
position in relation to Mr. King's influence in 
California is no new one, I will add, that there are 
many members in this House whom 1 assured, on 
my first arrival here, and v-fhile the papers were 
rife with the report that he was to be one of the 
Senators from that State, that Mr. King did not 
stand the least chance of reaching the position. 



15 



The gentleman from New Hampshire [Mr. Hib- 
bard] well knows 1 gave him that assurance. 
And here, sir, I make my final use of the declara- 
tion of the gentleman from Alabama, and ask him 
to look at the consistency of the thing, that a 
people, than whom no more intelligent or enter- 
prizing can be fouu.i on the globe, should be led 
round by Mr. King, of whose mission a large m;i- 
jority entertained suspicions; or by General Riley, 
with whom they had an open rupture, and against 
whose rule they had protested; or by General 
Taylor or his Cabinet, whose political creed dif- 
fered from that of two-thirds of the people there ? 
Sir, I take this occasion to say, from personal 
knowledge gained on the spot, backed up as it is 
with the facts I have presented, that there is not one 
single inkliyig of truth in the allegation. A baser 
slander never was uttered against any people, than 
this very same charge of doughfacedness against the 
people of California; and let me say to gentle- 
men, if they think the people of that young State 
can be led round by a string, or can be dictated to, 
or be wheedled into measures, let them go there 
and make the trial. If they suppose it can be 
done by them, or by this Administration, or by 
any other earthly power, they are reckoning with- 
out their host. These people have roamed too 
freely, scaled too many mountains, breathed too 
much free air, lain too many nights with the cur- 
tain of stars over their heads, or shrouded with 
the pall of the tempestuous night, periled too 
many dangers, and combatted with too many 
hardships, to be nosed round by any man. They 
feel as independent as the wild horse of the 
prairie; and if gentlemen think they can be taken 
with the lasso of dictation, let them try it — the 
sport may turn out to be a most serious under- 
taking. And while the people of California know 
what belongs to themselves, they are not ignorant 
of what belongs to others. While they will be 
found ever willing and prompt to extend toward 
all, the courtesies of civilized life, they will spurn 
the bribe of the demagogue, and do servility 
to no man. And now 1 say, finally, on this 
point, that whatever may have been General Tay- 
lor's secret design in sending Mr. King to Cali- 
fornia, the mission was not the cause of the con- 
vention, had no efiect on its deliberations or mea- 
sures, and should have no influence in the de- 
cision of this C[uestion of admission. In the name 
of Heaven, sir, what has the fact, that General 
Taylor may have intended an evil, to do with the 
question of right, as betvv'een California and the 
United States? and what has the question of aggres- 
sion or non-aggression between the South and 
North, to do with this question of right? The ques- 
tion is not between the southern States and Califor- 
nia, nor between the northern States and California, 
but between California and the Union. What has 
California done? Has she wronged the South? 
No, What, then ? Why, it is said the northern 
States, east of the Rocky Mountains, have wronged 
the South, and hence it is proposed, as a means to 
procure redress^^, to make California feel the lash — 
innocent, though she be, to hold her up, bleeding 
from the thousand wounds of her sufferings — to 
lacerate and tear her writhing and agonizing 
frame — in order that the North, out of compassion 
to her sufferings, may be led to do what she other- 
wise would not do. In order to extort a confes- 
Bion or concession from fifteen sisters, you pinion 



the sixteenth, who has done no harm, upon a 
cross, and shoot the arrows of your persecution 
into her. You lick up the life-blood which drops 
from the wounds you create; you significantly 
grin, with the blood upon your lips, at the agoni- 
zing contortions of her body, in order that her sis- 
ters, being moved to the heart's core by her suffer- 
ings, may do you justice, as you say, to procure 
her release ! And by whom is this doctrme ad- 
vanced ? Why, sir, it is put forth by men whose 
private character is above suspicion — men deeply 
read in morals and in law — put forth in the teeth 
of that sacred annunciation, which commands us 
not to do evil that good may come — put forth in 
conformity to that doctrine which used to visit th» 
sins of the parent on the heads of the children — 
and in the teeth of that more modern and Christian- 
like doctrine, that the eating of sour grapes by the 
parent, should not set the children's teeth on 
edge — put forth, it may be, in conformity to soma 
corrupt and damnable principle of practised politi- 
cal tactics, but in violation of every well-established 
feature of the moral. code, in disregard of the righta 
of humanity, and tlis suffering people of California^ 
and with a total indifference to the teachings ot 
our Lord, and of his gospel. 

After this view of the case, Mr. Chairman, I 
think I may venture to affirm, that the objection 
to admission, based upon the influence of this Ad- 
ministration over the minds of the people of Cali- 
fornia, and over the deliberations of the California 
convention, is entitled to no weight, and there- 
fore should not be taken into the account, in the. 
decision Congress may make in the matter. 

But we are still further met with the objection,, 
that the delegates to this convention were chosen, 
not by the votes of American citizens exclusively, 
but that Indians, Sandwich islanders, negroes, 
Spaniards, Chilians, and a host of others, partook 
in the matter. The same is alleged relative to 
the adoption of the constitution. Where gentle- 
men get their authority, I am unable to say. If 
it is empty declaration — mere words, uttered for 
Buncombe — it cannot be met, and ought not; and" 
if it is based on authority, the opponents to Id- 
mission are unfortunate, that they have not pro- 
duced us their authority. Now it is very easy to 
make an assertion — not so easy to prove it — but 
whether such declarations will satisfy the mem- 
bers of this body, is not quite so clear; and 
whether they will satisfy our constituents, de- 
pends altogether upon their intelligence, and the 
confidence they place in our declarations. I might 
as flatly deny the charge, but I was not present at 
the election, nor were those who make it. They 
allege; the proof is on them, not on me, who 
deny. As yet, they have presented no proof; until 
this is done, in justice 1 am not bound to answer; 
but in order that there may be no doubt in the 
matter, I quote from General Riley's proclama- 
tion, by which the suffrages for delegates were 
governed; 

<= Every free male citizen of the United Stales, and of 
Upper California, twenty-one years of age, and actually res- 
idLiit in the di-tiict vvlicre the vole isoftered, will be enii- 
lled to the right of suflVage. All citizens of Lower Cali- 
fornia, wlio have hnen forced locouie to tijis territory on 
account of having rendered assistance to ti;e American 
troops during the rt-cent war with Mexico, should also be 
allowed to vote in the. district where tliey actually reside. 

"Great care should be taken liy the inspectors, that votes 
arortceived only from Ao7ia ^Ve citizens actually resident 
in the country. These judges and inspectors, previous to 



( 



16 



tnlKnng upnu t!:e duties of their office, ghoulil take an 
oath, faiilifully aiid truly to (leiforin these duties. There 
turns should itatc distinctly llie numlmr of votes received 
for each candidate, be figniul by the inspt?c:ors, scaled, and 
immcdiats'iy ;.ransmitlvd to the 'Secretary of State for file in 
hi.s office. " 

The proclamation also defines the boundaries of 
the several districts', the number of delegates, are 
assigned to each district, and the day of election, 
and day of the meeting of the convention, desig- 
nated. 

By this it will be seen that none, save American 
rcitizens, and citizens of Upper California, and 
those citizer.s of Lower California who had 
taken part with us in the war, and had fled to 
Upper California for protection, were allowed to 
TOt^- Now what justification was there in allov/- 
ing the right of suffrage to citizens of Upper 
CaliforRia, and ihose from Lower California, who 
had aidtd in our battles, and who were actually 
re«iiJing.in Upper California at tiie time of voting? 
Of this latter kiriti, there were very few; but they 
hud made our country their choice — had ariayed 
them:ielve3 on the side of our flag, and against the 
despotism of Mexico; and had even come to us, 
and were actually d v/eiling among us at the time. 
I .submit ths propriety of allowing them to vote, 
to the generosity of mankind. 

But vyhat, say you, have you to say why the 
citizens of Upper California should have been 
sUovi-ed to vote ? Well, sir, the law organizing 
Oregon into a territorial government, allowed for- 
eigners to vote at the first election under that law, 
by filing their intentions to become American 
citizens, t.nd taking an oath to support the Con- 
stitution of the United St^ates, and the act of or- 
ganization. And were not the citizens of Upper 
Califarnia in the same, or a b!;tter, position at the 
issuing of General Riley's proclaiiaution, than for- 
cigner.'3 v.-ere h: Oregon after filing their intentions? 
Let us examine the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 
with reference to this point. 

This treaty v^rjis exchanged atdueretaro on the 
.30:h day of May, 1848. General Riley's proc- 
lamation for the convention was issued on the 3J 
day of June, 1849. A part of the eighih article 
of that treaty reads as follows: 

" Those [Mexicansi who shall prefer to remain in tht 
said tertitoiies, [acquiivd by the treaiy,] may either rttaiii 
the title and liglits of l\^c.\ieaii citizpns, or acquire those of 
citizens «{ tlieUnitcd i?t:U('s. But they shull be undfr ob- 
ligHliOT to make tlieir election witiiin one year from the 
date oi' tbeeic.Vangi,' olnitiricaiioa of this treaty; and those 
who Shall rtmain iu said territories a/ifcr the expiration of 
th,'it year, wiihout having declared their' intention to rttain 
the character of Mexican.-?, ihdll bn consv'.ercd to have elected 
to be:ome cilizem of thj Unitei! Stutes." 

Now, sir, their year had expired lliree days he- 
fore the proclamation was issued ; cons.;quently, 
when it was issued, the citizens of Upper Califor- 
^triu were deemed, in laio, to have fifed their inten- 
'.'U^na to becosne American citizens — they had made 
their jfclecjtion, and were just as much entitled to 
\ote, as were the foreigners in Oregon, after they 
had filed their intentions. The oath taken by the 
foreigners in Oregon, was not necessary to the ex- 
erci.se of the right of suffrage when the citizens of 
Upper California were called upon, at that time, 
to exercise. 

The ninth article of this same treaty, moreover, 
recognizes them as citizens of the United States, 
and pledges the faith of the nation to admit them 
iato the Union |^ a State. By this article, the 



right to come in as a State is absolute, the time 
of admission, on/y, being left to Congress. It ia 
as follows: 

" Mexicans who, hi the tcr: itorie? aforesaid, sha!! not pre- 
?srve the character of citizenaof the Mexican Republic, coji- 
formably with what is f^tipulaied in the preceding article, 
shfdlbc incorporated into the Union of t/.f. Unilei States, and 
be ad}nitted at the proper time, (to be judjjcd of t)y the Con- 
gress of the United Sta'.en.) to the enjoynier.t of all the rights 
of citizens ofthe United States, accoiding to the principles 
of the Ciiiiftitu;ion,'and in the mean time shall be main- 
tained and proti.'cted in the free enjoyment of their liberty 
and property, and secured in the free exercise of their reli- 
gion, without restriction." 

That the admission into the Union as a State, is 
here contemplated, is evident from the fact, that 
to be organized into a territorial govcrment, ia 
not being "incorporated into the Union ofthe United 
States," and from the further fact, that the latter 
part of the article contemplates a teiritorial dcpend- 
ency, "in the mean time," orxtntil the incorporation 
or admission should be deemed proper by Con- 
gress; and that naturalization is not here meant, 
is evident from the fact, that the time and manner 
of naturalization of foreigners, were at the time of 
the treaty settled by law, and needed no act or 
consent of Congress. These facts and arguments, 
therefore, show the utter futility of the objection 
which is based on impi^per voting for delegates 
to the convention; and to settle the same, so far a.g 
voting at the adoption of the constitution is con- 
cerned, I quote from the constitution itself, and 
the proclamation of General Riley, announcing its 
formation : 

Proclumation to the people of California. 

The dekgates of the people, assembled in convention, 
have formed a coiit^titution, which is now presented for 
your ratification. The nme atid manner of voting on tliis 
coni^titution, and of holding the first general election, are 
clearly set forth in the schedule; the whole subject i.^ there- 
fore left for your unbiased and deliberate consideration. 

The prefect for person exercising the functions of that 
office) of each district, will designate the places for opening 
the |)olls, and give due notice ofthe election, in accordance 
with the provisions of the constitution and schcdiile. 

The people are now called upon to form a Government 
for themtjclves, and to designate such officers as they desire 
to mak and execute the laws. That their choice may be 
wisely made, and that the government so organized may 
secure the permanent welfare and happiness of the people 
of the new Slate, is the sincere and earnest wish of the 
present F/xeeutive, wl;o, if the constitution be ratified, will, 
with pleasure, surrender his powers to whomsoever the 
people may designate as his successor. 

Given at Monterey, California, this 12th day of October, 
A. D., 1849. B. RILEY, 

Bit. Brig. Gen, U. S. ^., ci\d Governor of CalifottUp. 

Official: H. W. HALLKCK, *^' 

Bvt. Capt. end Secretary of Slcte. 
ARTiCLC 11.— PJght of Suffrage. "^ 

Section 1. Every white male citizen of the United Slates, 
and every white male citizen of Mexico, who shall have 
ck'cted to become a citizen of the United Slntss, ui^dcr the 
treaty of peace exchanged and ratified at Querctaro, on the 
othh day of May, 1848, of the age of twenty-one years, whoi 
shall have been a resident of the State six niontlis next pre- 
ceding the clectioh, and the county or district in which he 
claim:) his vote, ritiity daj's, shall he entitled to vote at all 
elections which arc now, or hereafter may be, authorized by 
law : Provided, that nothing herein contained, shall be con- 
strued to prevent the legislature, by a two thirds concur- 
rent vote, from admitting to the right of suffrage, 1 ndi.ms or 
the descendants of Indians, in such special ciiaes as such a 
proportion of tlie legislative body may deem just and proper. 
■ Sec. 2. Electors shall, in all cases except treason, felony, 
or breach ofthe peace, be privileged from arres^ton the days 
of the election, during their attendance at sucji election, 
going tT and returning thcrt-tVotii. 

Sec. 3. No elector shall be obliged to perform militia duty 
on the day of election, except in time of war or public 
danger. 

Sec. 4. For the purpose of voting, no person shall be 
deemed to have gained or lo^t a residence by n>»soa of his 



17 



fireBence or abaence, while employed in the service of the 
United Slates; nor while engaged in the navigation of the 
waters of this State, or of the United States, or of tlie high 
seaa ; nor while a student of any seminary of learning ; nor 
while kept at any alms-house, or other asylum, at public ex- 
pense ; nor while oonfined in any public prison. 

Sec. 5. No idiot or insane person, or person convicted of i 
any infamous crime, shall be entitled to the privileges of an i 
elector. j 

Sec. 6. All elections by the people shall b.° by ballot. 

PiJ'th section of the SchcSvJe of the Constitution. j 

"Sec. 5. Every citizen of California, declared a legal voter 
by this constitution, and every citizen of the United States, 
a resident of this State, on the day of election, shall be en- 
titled to vote r,t the first general election under this consti- 
tution, and on the question of the adoption thereof." 

Which arc to prevail — these stubborn facts which 
I have presented, and tlie reasons in support of 
them, or the declarations of gentlemen, who, if 
they knew the facts, deemed it proper, for reasons 
best known to tiieinselves, to suppress them .' This 
objection, as the others, when brought to the test 
of truth and facts, vanishes into thin air, and leaves 
the men who make it searching in vain for the 
ghoat of their distorted fancy. It is a principle of 
law well established, that public officers are pre- 
sumed to have done their duty, until the contrary 
is shown. Are we to assume it as a fixed fact, that 
the regulations prescribed by General Riley's proc- 
lamation, and those laid down by the constitution, 
to be followed in voting, were disregarded, or not 
followed .> or rather, have we not a right to assume 
the converse, until the contrary is shown ? Certain 
it is, sir, that the rules in both cases are specific, and 
allow none to vote that any impartial man would 
disapprove of. But suppose some interloper did 
vote, not entitled to under the rules — of which there 
has been no proof, and I make bold to say there 
can be none — should California be kept out of the 
Union for an unlawful act of another.' No, sir, 
no. 

But it is said, Mr. Chairman, that this constitu- 
tion excludes slavery, and that, for several reasons, 
this is v/rong — first, because it was brought about 
by the influence of the Administration, through 
Mr. Kin*; secondly, that it is unjust toward the 
South: thirdly, that the people of California had 
no right to do it; fourthly, that the South was not 
fairly represented; and fifthly, that the restrictive 
clause in the constitution does not express the sen- 
timent of the people. Let us consider these points 
. *»► their inverse order. 

it is a principle, well-established in republican 
'GrtJTernments, that we are to look to the represent- 
ative to express the will of the people. If the 
people are all agreed on any one question, and that 
ia understood by the representatives asisembled, 
we expect no difference of opinion among them on 
such question. And if the representatives are all 
agreed on a question, mooted previous to their 
election, we reason from them to the people, and 
have the right to suppose that a majority, at least, 
of their respective constituents, were of the same 
opinion on the mooted question. By this rule, 
let us try the objection, that the clause in question 
does not express the wish of the people of Cali- 
fornia. To do this, I quote from the journals of 
the convention: 

" Slwhrv. 

'• Mr. Shannon moved to insert, a? an additional section, 
the following: ' Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, 
' unless for ttie punishment cf crimes, shall ever be toler- 
' a,ted in this State.' 

"Mr. McCarver moved to amend tl'ie amendment by ad- 



ding thereto the following: 'Nor shall the introduction of 
free negroes, under indenture or otherwise, be allowed.' 

"After debate, as to the propriety of a division of the two 
questions, Mr. McCarver withdrew his amendment. 

» Mr. Shannon's amendment then being first in order, Mr. 
Haileck, after debate in reference to the particular portion 
of the constitution which the provision should appear in, 
moved that ' adeclaration against the introduction of slavery 
into California shall be inserted in the bill of rights.' 

"Mr. Shannon temporarily withdrawing his amendment 
to enable Mr. Haileck to make the motion, 

" The motion of Mr. Haileck was decided in the affirm- 
ative. 

"Mr. Shannon then again submitted his amendment, and 
after further debate, as to the expediency of submitting the 
question to the people in a separate article, the proposed 
section was unanimously adopted." 

In the Aha California of October 1st, 1649, is 
the following extract, from an editorial, on the 
foregoing subject: 

"The only point ui)on which it was supposed .i contro- 
versy wouliarise-— the question of slavery— passed without 
debate, and imunimovsly, utterly prohibiting slavery. Some 
few were in favor of submitting the matter to the people for 
a separate vote, but it was not contended for with any 
show of strenuosiiy, and was voted down almost unani- 
mously." 

What, sir, does this little bit of history speak'? 
That the clause in question is not the imbodiment 
of the will of the people '. JN'bt one ninn opposed 
to the clause— aZ/ voted for it! A few, very few, 
suggested that the matter had better be submitted 
to the people — they were not urgent; and when 
this proposition was put to vote, so clear was the 
conviction that the people were opposed to slavery, 
that it was voted down almost unanimously. Now, 
sir, there is one of two natural inferences to be 
drawn from the history of this matter, either that 
every member of the convention saw that slavery 
would be an evil in California, or, that if any one 
of them believed the contrary, he saw that his 
constituents were so opposed to it that he had 
not the moral courage to vote his sentiments. 
Take which horn of the dilemma you please. 
In one case, it proves that slavery ought not to go 
there, the delegates being judges; in the other, it 
proves that the people so thought. 

In addition to this, Mr. Chairman, I have some 
little knowledge of this matter gained from p'er- 
sonal observation in California, and conversing 
with the people there. My knowledge is also 
strengthened by intercourse with the people of 
Oregon, who have commingled largely with the 
people of California in the mines and elsewhere; 
and I state it without reserve, distinctly and fully, 
that the opposition to slavery in California was 
almost universal among her people. And this op- 
position was not confined to northern men ; men 
of the South, as well as of the North, believed it 
would be injurious to themselves, and to Califor- 
nia, and hence were opposed to it. 

The rcasoB for this opposition to slavery is v»ry^ 
obvious. It does not arise out "of hostility to t«r 
South, and, I might add, not so much from an op^^ 
position to slavery itself in the abstract. * But^ 
grows out of a very prominent law of nature, well 
known to us all, that mankind, congregating to- 
gether in a community, either temporarily, or per- 
mane^nly, will seek their own protection and ad- 
vantage in preference to consulting the protection 
and advfantage of others. Now, has it occurred to 
you, Mr. Chairman, what would be the result of 
introducing slave labor into the mines.' First, 
you must consider, that the practice of hiring men 
to labor for you there, is pt*ctically estopped. 



18 



The mines are free lo all, and no man will hire 
jiilessiie can get wages to an amount as large as 
ne could make by working for himself, taking 
Mo the account his chances for loss or bad luck; 
3ut whenever ilie wages consume the profit of tlie 
lands, the inducement to hire is taken away, and 
.he practice ceases. It is evident, therefore, that the 
nan from the free States must work single-handed. 
3urhovv would it be by men from the southern 
States with their slaves ? One man might work a 
housand, and consequently, on the ground that a 
slave will do as much work as a white man, the 
southerner might make a thousand flollars to the 
lortherner one. While the southerner would 
gradually assume the position of the aristocrat, ari- 
ling in part from his exemption from labor, and 
n part from his massive wealth, the northerner 
md white man, without slaves, would as surely 
md more rapidly be degraded by the opposite 
.auses. But should these lands ever be sold, or 
eased to miners, who could monopolize them ? 
S^ot the while man without slaves, or the northern 
nan, because, not being able to carry on an exten- 
live operation for the causes 1 have named, he 
ould not afford the capital to invest if he had it. 
rt'ho then ? The slaveholder, for the opposite 
eason. Hence, the mines would surely pa5s out 
if the hands of the northern man, or the man 
yithout slaves, and be concentrated in the slave- 
lolder and monopolized by him. 

Now, sir, this view of the case was taken into 
.ccount by the people of California — not by the 
leople from the Korth exclusively, hut by people 
rom the South; and being under the influence of 
his law 1 have mentioned, they naturally decided 
gainst the institution of slavery in their State; 
nd our southern friends ought not to take this as 
n insult to them, or as expressing a desire to 
neddle with the institution of slavery at all, out 
f the bounds of California, for such is not the 
asc. We on the Pacific do not mean to meddle 
i^ith your matters at all. It is right that we 
hould look out for ourselves; and I hope we will 
Iways be conservative enough to help to see 
hat each section of our common country does 
jstice to the other. If the introduction of slaves 
here would have the efi^ect indicated, as the peo- 
ile believed, it is not strange that they should 
e opposed to it. No, sir — no, it is not strange. 

understand the people of California well, sir; 
liey are brave men — liberty-loving men — men 
i?ho scorn to be slaves, or to be ranked with 
laves ; and honestly entertaining the views I 
ave expressed on this occasion, there is not one 
f them, when he reads this faint picture which 1 
lave drawn, and bethinks himself of the dishonor 
nd degradation that he believes would be silently 
iutsi«-e/i/ brought upon him by the introduction of 
uch an institution, but will lay down his paper, 
nd while the blood rushes to his cheeks, will 
rip hi§ teeth, draw up the sinews of his body, 
nd swear by his right arm, the knife by his 
ide, and by " the common law of California," 
hat it shall never be. This is no idle fancy 
if mine, Mr. Chairman; and I now feel called 
ipon to state — which I do clearly, and without 
eserve — that slave labor, in my judgment, never 
071 — never icill, work the mines oi* California. 

do not state this, as expressing my own wish 
me way or Uie other. I do not desire to enter at 
.1! into the strife about this institution; I state it 



as a fixed fact, based upon a slate of things in esse; 
and if California had been organized wiih a terri- 
torial government, at the last session of Congress, 
and any man had taken twenty, fifty, cr one hun- 
dred slaves into those mines, they W'"uM have 
been cut down — yes, sir, cut down — cm down by 
white men. No man can monopolize the working 
of those mines. There is a spirit abroad there, as 
chivalricas ever brooded over the heights of Scot- 
land, or gathered strength on the summits of Swit- 
zerland. To have maintained slave labor there, 
during this last year, would have required a stand- 
ing army of fifty thousand men; and whenever it 
is desired to redden those mountain streams with 
human gore, take your slaves there. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope never to see our coast 
disturbed by a convulsion of this kind. I would 
advise against it — I would do all 1 cou!d to pre- 
vent it. But the pf'onie of Califnvri". t.-il:.= this 
view of it, that the introduction of slaves there 
would be the great&st evil which could be imposed 
upon them. They claim the right lo settle their 
own institutions, and if they should want slaves 
hereafter, they will have them. Popular move- 
ment is a current which no man can withstand; 
and he who breasts is, is sure to be ingulfed in 
its angry surges. The doctrine of popular rights 
— the right of the people to govern themijelves, 
and settle their own institutions — is a progressive 
doctrine; and he who arrays himself against it, will 
encounter a steel that will pierce him — will throw 
himself into a livid flame that will consume him, 
root and branch. And a successful, or even a 
protracted opposition to the admission of Cali- 
fornia, will kindle a fire there which will burn for 
ages — a fire, sir, that I hope never to see lighted 
up on that coast. I hope to see the altar of the 
Union planted, there, before which its derotees 
can come from all parts of it, and from all parts 
of each State thereof, and kneel amid the sweet 
perfumes of a common and loving brotherhood. 
God knows that I shall be glad when all these 
causes of contention are settled, when all cioga to 
our national progress are removed, whetithe car- 
riage of State shall be righted again, and the 
Genius of Liberty shall crack his whip over the 
chargers of civilization, rushing on t© r:ew con- 
quests, and the goal of the nation's glory, And 
withered be my hand, if I ever do anything inten- 
tionally to stop or retard its progress. 

But now, Ivlr. Chiiirman, let us turn our atten- 
tion to the objection that the South was not pro- 
perly represented in the California convention. 
This representation is of course a relative one — 
that is, when you say the southern States were 
not fairly represented, you mean in comparison 
with the northern States. In that convention 
there were three classes of representatives, or dele- 
gates, two of which, it may be said, were repre- 
senting their re.«pective sections — first the delegates 
from California; secondly, the delegates from the 
southern States; and lastly, the delegates from the 
northern States. Id another view, all the^e dele- 
gates were representing California. But the com- 
plaint is, that the South, in comparison with the 
North, was not fairly represented, or in other 
words, had not a fair proportion of the delegates. 
But what are the facts ? 

if you examine the census of 1840, yoii will 
find the relative population of the free and slave 
States put down as follows, v/ith the exception of 



19 



Texas, whose population at that time I have 
estimated at 35,000. 

Populationof free States 1840. Popu/oliono/sloie States 1840. 
Maine 501,793 Delaware .Z?)9?5 



New Hampshire 284,574 

Vermont 291,948 

Massachusetts 737,699 

Khode Island 108,830 

ConnecUcut 309,978 

New York 2,428,921 

Pennsylvania 1,724,033 

New Jersey 373,306 

Ohio 1,519,467 

Michigan 212,967 

Indiana 685,866 

Illinois 476,183 

Wisconsin 30,945 

Iowa 43,112 

Total 9,728,922 



Maryland 470,019 

Virginia 1,2,39,797 

North Carolina 753.419 

South Carolina 594,398 

Georgia 691,392 

Florida 54,477 

Alabatna 590,756 

Mississippi 375,651 

Louisiana 352,41 1 

Arkansas 97,574 

Tennessee 829,210 

Kentucky 779,828 

Missouri 363,702 

District oC Columbia. .43,712 
Texas (estimated at).a3,()00 

Total 7,369,431 



By the census of 1850, the relative pronortion 
of the same States will have materially changed 
in favor of the free States. In view of this, I 
have, in order to make it fair to the South, rep- 
resented the relative population of the two sec- 
tions by nine and seven; consequently of the 
delegates in that convention from the several 
States, on this basis, the South would be entitled 
to seven sixteenths, while the North would be 
entitled to nine sixteenths. But if you take the 
basis of the representation of these sections in 
the Congress of the United States, you will find 
the North has, of the two hundred and thirty- 
one members, one hundred and forty, the South 
ninety-one. Letting these numbers be repre- 
sented, for facility of calculation, by what is 
nearly their relative representatives, seven and 
five, (but against the North,) and on this basis 
the South would be entitled to five twelfths of said 
delegates, while the North would be entitled to 
seven twelfths; and if you allow the representa- 
tion to be based on the comparative nurnber of 
States in each section, then the North and South 
will each be entitled to one half of the delegates 
who went thither from the States. 

Now for. the facts: There were forty-eight mem- 
bers in that convention. Of these, fifteen, name- 
ly, Messrs. Semple, Botts, Dent, Gwin, Hall, 
Hobson, Jones, Hollingsworth, Hoppe, McCar- 
ver, Moore, Ord, Stewart, Walker, and Dozen- 
croft, were from the southern States, directly, or 
by education and birth. From the North there 
were, Messrs. Aram, Brown, Crosbey, Dimmick, 
Ellis, Foster, Gilbert, Halleck, Hanks, Hastings, 
Larkin, Lippitt, Lippincott, McDougal, Morton, 
Sherman, Sherwood, Snyder, Tefft, and Vermule, 
twenty in all. The other thirteen were citizens of 
California at the time of the treaty. There were, 
then, thirty-five members of the convention who 
went to California after the treaty. Now seven-six- 
teenths of thirty-five, is fifteen and five-sixteenths. 
On this score, then, the South gets her share into 
less than the third part of a man, and he who 
would quarrel about this, must certainly have a 
great liking for disputatiot:, and be tenacious to a 
fault. If you go on the basis of representation of 
the several States in Congress, it is still worse for 
this sort of objector. Five twelfths of thirty-five 
is fourteen and seven -twelfths; therefore, on this 
score, the South gets five-twelfths of a man more 
than she is entitled to. On the last basis adopted, 
the South would want two men and a half. I do 
not suppose, however, any one will contend that 



this is a just basis. If the restrictive clause )ia^ 
been carried by two votes and a half, or if' two 
and a half would have lied it, then there would be 
some plausibility in raising the question. Thus it 
appears, Mr. Chairman, if you consider the rela- 
tive population of the South and North, at the 
time of that convention, you will find the South 
was more than equuUy represented, and if any sec- 
tion has the right to object on this score, it is the 
North. How easy then is this monster objection 
made up of a combination of false declamation, 
misrepresentation, and ignorance of the facts, de- 
molished by a single fact taken without hands 
from the depository of truth ! But when driven 
from this position, the objector covers himself by 
saying, the people of California had no right to 
form a State government, nor any right to exclude 
slavery. 

The right to form a State government has been 
already considered; the right to exclude slavery 
is now the point before us. If the people had a 
right, as we think we have shown, to form a State 
government, that right would seem to include the 
other right, namely, to exclude slavery. The right 
to form a State constitution must certainly give 
the right to predetermine the different parts, divis- 
ions, chapters, and sections of that constilution-w 
for how can it be said, that the right to' do a 
thing exists, without a right to the means, without , 
which the thing cannot be done .' And as all the 
diflferent parts of a constitution, its doctrines, and 
sentiments, must, from necessity, pass under re- 
view, and be agreed upon before the constitution 
can have a complete form, or vitality, the right to 
consider and determine these, must be included in 
the right to complete the form of the constitution, 
and to give it life. Therefore, if the right in the 
people of a territory to form a State constitution, 
preparatory to adrnission, is absolute and not de- 
pendent, as we believe we have shown, then is the 
right to determine what the features of that con- 
stitution shall be — absolute and not dependent; and 
if the only prerequisite to such a constitution is, 
that it shall be republican, then, until the objector 
can show that the feature in question is anti- 
republican, he must yield to the right of the peo- 
ple to adopt it. 

The doctrine that the people of the territories 
alone have the right to determine their own do- 
mestic institutions, or to pass such local laws, not 
inconsistent with the Constitution of the United 
States, as they may deem necessary, txnd upon 
forming a State constitution, that they have the 
right to frame that constitution as they please, 
provided it does not conflict with the Constitution 
of the Confederacy, is a doctrine emphatically of 
the South; and I t\m compelled by the truth to 
say, that when this doctrine reached the Pacific 
coast, it was popul.'ir, it is popular now, and I 
hope and believe always will be popular. It 
wore the garb of republicanism — it struck the 
pride of the people — it paid deference to ' theiir 
sovereignty — respected their feelings — and it was 
well calculated to receive, as it did receive, the 
cordial approbation of the people. This is the 
doctrine, as we then understood it, inculcated in 
Mr. Cass's Nicholson letter; and this is the doc- 
trine, as the journals, speeches, and history of 
that time show, which was put forth by the oppo- 
nents to the Wilmot proviso, and now the oppo- 
nents, to a very great extent, to the admission of 



20 



California. That this is the fact, I cite you to the 
resolution and remarks of Mr. Calhoun, before 
given, in which he says " that every State, about 
' to become a member of this Union, has a right 
' to form ite own government as it pleases;" and 
also to the extract from Mr. Berrien's report, 
which 1 have previously cited, in which he says, 
"it is the loill of the people expressed in [that] 
convention which alone creates the State." But 
here is the position of the South presented by the 
sditor of the Union, uttered at the time the con- 
test was going on. I think no man will charge, 
justly at least, that the editor of the Union is false 
to the South, or that he does not understand their 
doctrines. This exposition is concise, yet ex- 
plicit and full; and it speaks volumes v/hy Cali- 
fornia should come in. You fir.st taught her 
people this doctrine, and like practical Americans, 
thfey have laid hold of it ;' and having taken you 
It your wo!-d, they now ask admission. But here 
is the extract: 

"The South di'nies that Congress has any jurisdiction 
)vcr the s-uhject of slavery, anj contemis that the people of 
'■he territories alone, when Ilrey frame a constitution, pre- 
paratory to admission into tlie Union, have aright to speak 
3nd be heard on that mutter. Tliis fact beiim settled, it really 
teems to us that this exdling question mi;iht be speedily ad- 
histeil, if caUn counsels prevail. The South contends for 
tier honor, and for tlie great principles of non-intervention 
ind State equality, li'hy, then, cannot all unite, and permit 
California to come into the Union as soo-n as she can frame a 
■■oisslitulionl Then, according to the doctrines which pre- 
I'ail on both sides of Mason and Dixon's line, she may con- 
Uitnlionally estahlish her doniestie instilntions on any basis 
::onsi«tent with republican principles. The South could lose 
ttothin'x by adopting this course. On the contrary, she would 
uive all for ukich she contend^.'' 

Then the " people alone " had the right, when 
they formed a constitution, preparatory to admis- 
sion, to settls this question of slavery. Then 
there was no harm in the people's forming a con- 
stitution, and why harm now ? Is it because they 
have decided the question of slavery icrong ? 
But the right to decide it, includes the right to 
deternfiine what the decision shall be, and conse- 
quently the liberty to decide wrong. If the matter 
is to be entrusted to their judgment, their decision 
should be acquiesced in, otherwise it would be 
folly to intrust them with the matter. I had pre- 
pared a large number of extracts from the speeches 
of the times, from editorial articles of different 
papers, and resolutions passed by legislatures and 
conventions, all going to show that such was the 
doctrine of the South, during the last Congress. 
But, by reason of the great length to which my 
remarks have already extended, I am obliged to 
omit them. I see the same doctrine is reaffirmed 
by a convention, held at Philadelphia, on the 22d 
of February last, in these words: 

" o. Resolved. TUat, by virtue of a natural and inalienable 
right of sel!-2;overnmeht, the people of the separate territo- 
ries, when politically organized, have the power of making 
their own laws, and of executing llieni, so far .^s they do not 
conflict with the Constitution and laws of the United States, 
nnd therefore have exelusively the rigtit to prohibit or allow 
slavery in such territories." 

Nevertheless, I am reluctantly compelled to say, 
Mr. Chairman, that it will be my duty, as I now 
do, to inform the people of the Pacific coast, that 
this right is now denied them by some of the very 
persons who were at first its champions. I hope 
the vote on the admission of California will mate- 
rially shake the truth of this annunciation, for I 
know well how they will receive the intelligence; 
but the fault is not mine; it is the fault of those 



who compel me to make the announcement. Be- 
ing the delegate of the people, I am obliged to keep 
them informed of the facts as they exist. Much 
might be said to establish this right, but very little 
is needed to make the people believe it. It is one 
of those political notions that become a part of 
every republican's existence. He needs only to 
have it announced, to believe it; he asks no 
weighty arguments to prove to him that he pos- 
sesses the rights of a man. Trusting, therefore, 
that it has been shown that the people of Califor- 
nia had a right to exclude slavery from their State, 
and that such was formerly the doctrine entertained 
by those who now oppose it, I will leave this 
point to the reflection of the people, who are com- 
petent to settle it. 

The settlement of the point, that the people of 
California had the right to exclude slavery, deter- 
mines the other point against the South, which 
point is, that the exclusion of slavery was unjust 
to the South; for sure it is, that two rights cannot 
come in conllict. If the people of California had 
the right to exclude it, then the South could have 
had no right to prevent it; and if the people of 
California have nnerely made use of a right of 
theirs, they have done no injustice to the South in 
exercising that right. To make use of a right, is 
doing rightly; but if doing rightly is doing wrong 
to another, then are words senseless, and the foun- 
dations of morals have fallen down. Can it be 
said, that the people of California have wronged 
the South, in the exercise of a clear right of their 
own .' And this right to exclude slavery being 
settled, it follows, that in excluding it, no wrong 
has been done to others. 

As to the next point in order, that this restrictive 
clause was brought about by the influence of Mr. 
King, I refer you to that part of my remarks, in- 
cluding Mr. King's letter, as I apprehend the 
matter has been fully settled there against the 
objector. 

There are, Mr. Chairman, but three points 
more, which I shall consider — first, the policy of 
admitting California into the Union as a State, in 
contradistinction to organizing it into a territoriiil 
government; secondly, the impropriety of dividing 
it on 36° 30', and admitting that portion north as a 
State, and forming that part south into a territorial 
government; and thirdly, the inconsiderate folly of 
dissolving this Union, or disturbing its harmony 
for doing either of the first two things mentioned. 

In considering the first of these points, I lay it 
down as a principle, which Congress should ad- 
here »o, to administer this Government as economi- 
cally as the nature of the case v/ill allow. It 
should, in all cases, study cheapness, when that 
can be done without detriment to the public ser- 
vice. In what aspect, therefore, does the ques- 
tion of admis.5ion of California as a State, in con- 
tradistinction to organizing her into a territory, 
present itself. By admitting her as a State, v/e 
save the expenses of a civil government, as well 
as the appropriations to which she would be enti- 
tled as a territory; and is that nothing worthy o£ 
consideration.' If you organize her into a terri- 
torial government, you must rule her by military 
despotism, or you must pay the expense of a civil 
government. Now, it is certainly rational to con- 
clude, that the government of California asa State, 
can be administered as cheaply as it can in a terri- 
. tory. When her citizens have to be taxed for the 



21 



we expense, have a right to suppose the govern- 
ment will be adnninistered as cheaply as the na- 
ture of the case will admit. Yet Governor Burnett, 
in his first annual message to the Legislature, says: 
" Fiom the best estimate I h;ive been able to make, the 
current expenses oT the State government, for the first year, 
will reach half a niilli m of dolidrs, but most probahly will 
exceed that sum." 

This, then, is the difierence in the two plans in 
a pecuniary point of view; but if it thought best to 
incur an additional half million of expense, to allay 
strife and contention, and this will do it, I shall 
acquiesce. I merely present this point, to show 
the expediency — the wisdom — in admitting Cali- 
fornia, as her people, if admitted, are not only 
willing, but able, to relieve theGovernmeiiiof this 
burden. 

But now to the second point — that of dividing 
her on 36° 30'. In this case, you not only compel 
that part of California admitted, with leas means, 
to bear the same burden of a State government, 
but you form a territory south of that line, which 
this Government will have to maintain in that de- 
pendent condition for an indefinite period, and at 
an expense of hundreds of thousands of dollars 
yearly; for it may be affirmed, with all truth, that 
California, west of the mountains, and south of 
36° 30', never can make a State of itself; and it is 
folly — absolute folly — to say it can, or that it 
should be, organized with Deseret or New Mex- 
ico. The extent of desert between them is such 
as 10 forever separate them and make them stran- 
gers. They never can be connected, either in State 
or teiritorial governments. This part of Califor 
nia, therefore, must come into this Union with the 
remainder of the State, or it must stand isolated 
as a territorial dependency .forever, and at the enor- 
mous expense to the Government I have indicated. 
Every man who knows anything about the coun- 
try south of the line proposed, knows that the 
southern part of the territory has not got, and never 
can have, the necessary elements of a State. Had 
I time, I could show this by quoting from the best 
of authors — but I have not. Such is the truth, 
and as such, I assert it without fear of successful 
contradiction. Even the southern part of the San 
Joaquin valley, which that line would cut off, I 
am authorized to say, cannot be reached by the peo- 
ple on the coast south of that line, where is to be 
found what little land there is in the southern por- 
tion, except by mules; and the mountains are such 
as to defy the construction of wagon-roads across 
them. And it cannot escape the eye, that the only 
outlet for the proceeds of that valley, is down the 
San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers to San Fran- 
cisco, which is an additional reason why the whole 
valley should belong to one and the same State, 
and why California should be admitted as she is. 
Why, then, when God and nature have made it 
indispensable that all of California, as laid off, 
should belong to one State, shall it be contested by 



the wrath of man ? Why contested at the expense 
of nat^lral bmmdaries, the pMic treasury, and the 
rights of the people there ? Let those answer who 
wi4l. • 

Mr. Chairman, I have turned the last point but 
one In my argument; and here I would leave the 
matter, did I not believe it the duty of every man 
to define his position as to a question which has 
been attached to, and discussed with, this question. 
The dissolution of the Union is a theme too familiar 
to require me to say I mean that; but that ia 
what I do mean. I shall not argue the question 
of dissolution as a question of right, or expediency, 
or profit, or consequences. Theground is too sacred 
to be trod with feet covered with dust as mine are. 
Leaving the absolute folly — na.Y, insanity — of dis- 
solving or disturbing the harmony of this Union, fo,r 
the admission of California as a sovereign State — 
leaving this to the judgment of a reflecting people — 
1 will take the liberty, as I believe all should do, of 
expressing my own opinion of it, and what I 
believe to be the opinion of my constituents. I 
believe, sir, that siu h a doctrine should be driven 
from the pale of civilization as a common enemy ' 
of us all. I do not believe — nay, sir, I icfll not 
believe — there is a single man in this Union, North 
or South, who is a dissolntionist on such a contin- 
gency. To charge a man with it, would be, in 
my estimation, to charge him with the basest of 
heresies — would be to disgrace him in the eye of 
the world. With pain, Mr. Chairman, have I 
been asked, (I hope not sincerely,) where Oregon 
would go in case of a dissolution ? Where should 
shego, sir? She is now a child — a foster-child of_, 
our common mother whom she loves and adores; 
and if any of the family are so neglectful — so inhur- 
man—&s to stab the mother, and with the blood from 
the wound besmear her garments, shall Oregon aid 
or abet? Oregon is at home, sir, upon the sacrei 
hearth-stone of her parent; that parent smiles upott 
her, and she is glad; and do you ask where Oregon 
will go ? Sir, as long as there is a vestige of thfe 
old homestead remaining, will Oregon reinain to 
revere the spot where it stands. Oregon says, 
what I trust we all say — what every State should 
say — what every man should say — that she is for 
the integrity of this Union under all circumstances, 
yes sir, under all circumstances. This is both a 
patriotic and confiding sentiment; and being thus 
tor the Union, she cannot entertain any proposition 
for dissolution. She loves all pans of it equally 
well. She has no dislike or grudges toward any 
part, and I pray she never may have. She would 
say, what all should say, that she is ready to con- 
tribute to her last man, woman, and child, to her 
last cent, to the last drop of her blood, and.to the last 
vestige of her honor, to defend It. And while 
there is a star of the old Constellation twinkling, 
the needle of Oregon will point to it as the beacon- 
light of her safety. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



017 167 660 5 



